Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:52 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 96):
or is there some bad blood with the Spain too?

There is no bad blood between the US and our Spanish friends.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 99):
Hell, bring back the C-97 Stratofreighter, that will get the job done!

Actually, for about the first 25 or so years, Airbus kind of did that. They used Boeing B-377/C-97 Super Guppies to move their airplane parts around Europe. Later they hand built the A-300-600F Bulugias (I've always suspected they did some reverse engineering from the Super Guppies to make the Bulgias).  irked   Wow!


Maybe they can charter the B-747-400LCFs, from Boeing, when it comes time to build the A-350XWB?

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:23 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 74):
Isn't it funny how the A400M supporters go mute when faced with the cold hard facts displayed above. When you figure in the personnel costs that go along with having more A400M's than C-17's in your inventory, buying A-400's instead of C-17's makes no sense from a bottom line perspective.

But unlike our European friends, who see no problem with supporting a "buy European" preference when it comes to EU air forces but when it comes to a tanker purchase for the USAF, they want us to abandon a US preference, I'm not going to suggest that the RAF, Luftwaffe, and French Air Forces buy the C-17. I understand why they want the A400 to succeed.

anyone notice the dollar is rather weak at the moment? It won;t stay like this forever (I hope so! get your economy going again you lazy SOB's! Big grin)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 79):
And so are the A400M cost overruns. It looks like Airbus will eat these cost overruns (and on top of A380 costs they must be getting indigestion!) but somehow I don't think Airbus will be willing or able to do this again.

there are not legendary (yet). In the future this would probably be done my military air transport in stead of airbus yes.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 82):
Your suggestion that I am unaware of the US weapons purchases by EU countries is not only absurd, but unsupported by anything I've ever posted on Anet.

dude, come one, if you are going to make stupid bold statements, stand for them okay?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 89):
Nonsense It's already behind A350/B878. It'll be the last "mostly metal" large air transport ever launched.

Composite is for a lot of reasons a trend and not always the best solution. A380 has a lot of "firsts" being metal-laminate hybrid material, first all composite wingbox (for such a big bird that is something). One piece composite leading edges etc. etc. BTW, it already lives up to efficiency and ecological demands that the average airlines hopes to achieve in 2020...

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 99):
Yes, and the A400 concept was dreamed up (stolen!) originally in what, 1984? The -15 just had different avionics, wings, tail, engines, floor, length, and pretty much everything else, but it's heritage makes the C-17 70's technology?

aw man..

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 99):
We could figure out a way to get an Abrams onto the 747 I bet, power it with huge turboprops, give it an over-head wing, and land it on a gravel runway, but there's just no point in it. Hell, bring back the C-97 Stratofreighter, that will get the job done!

now you've really disqualified yourselves. this is such crap, how can you even post this?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:58 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 101):
Composite is for a lot of reasons a trend and not always the best solution. A380 has a lot of "firsts" being metal-laminate hybrid material, first all composite wingbox (for such a big bird that is something). One piece composite leading edges etc. etc. BTW, it already lives up to efficiency and ecological demands that the average airlines hopes to achieve in 2020...

I suppose we should ask the A400M designers why they went for an all composite wing and why the A350 will use even more composites than either A380 or A400M?

A380 is a great plane technically, it's just not superior to everything for twenty years, or whatever nonsense Keesje typed above.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:38 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):
You might be right. The Russian / Ukrainians are as reliable / thrustworthy to Americans as mean wolves, but the general public doesn´t know so might give them the benefit of the doubt.. On the other hand the french are training from US navy carriers and close cooperating in a long string of other areas (e.g. Afghanistan). But again nobody knows / wants to know and sentiments could play a role..

Disagree with this. In my circle this is the common understanding on views. IMO, most Americans (living in reality) are more concerned with the forementioned nations than any other global locations.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:45 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 102):
eat plane technically, it's just not superior to everything for twenty years, or whatever nonsense Keesje typed above.

Actually, on the 380 I have not seen any "official" numbers on fuel burn. SQ says, " we are satisfied." Performance is better than expected. Ok, be specific. Yes, a dispatch rate close to 100%. Surprised? I'm not. They have hand built planes that are gone over between turnarounds like a cardiac bypass.

PAX like the suites, Ok. It's big, ok.

Let's wait another year. Then we will see the " assembly line " 380 in service.

Can someone from SQ leak some burn numbers in here?  Wink
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:08 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 102):
I suppose we should ask the A400M designers why they went for an all composite wing and why the A350 will use even more composites than either A380 or A400M?

there are benefits for composites. For the A400M it seamed a very good option. However, the A400M is more than any other a political airplane, which can be seen in the design. Britain makes all airbus wings. This was their chance to make a composite wing and develop the techology.

Also, the main cargo door is composite (if that's a good idea in a alluminium fuselage, I don't know).

The reason the A350 will have more composite (wasn;t the original plan) was because airlines otherwise wouldn't buy it. It's also about perception.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 102):
380 is a great plane technically, it's just not superior to everything for twenty years, or whatever nonsense Keesje typed above.

I don't expect it to remain the most advanced for 20 years. It is the most advanced flying today though..
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:07 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 101):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 74):
Isn't it funny how the A400M supporters go mute when faced with the cold hard facts displayed above. When you figure in the personnel costs that go along with having more A400M's than C-17's in your inventory, buying A-400's instead of C-17's makes no sense from a bottom line perspective.

But unlike our European friends, who see no problem with supporting a "buy European" preference when it comes to EU air forces but when it comes to a tanker purchase for the USAF, they want us to abandon a US preference, I'm not going to suggest that the RAF, Luftwaffe, and French Air Forces buy the C-17. I understand why they want the A400 to succeed.

anyone notice the dollar is rather weak at the moment? It won;t stay like this forever (I hope so! get your economy going again you lazy SOB's! )

No shit the dollar is weak. We're planning our 2008 vacations - which include Europe - and the weak dollar is painfully evident.

But we're coming across the pond regardless.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 101):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 82):
Your suggestion that I am unaware of the US weapons purchases by EU countries is not only absurd, but unsupported by anything I've ever posted on Anet.

dude, come one, if you are going to make stupid bold statements, stand for them okay?

What post have I abandoned?

I indeed realize that over the past 40 years, when you talk about weapon system purchases, more US products have been bought by EU countries than the reverse.

My position is simple. When it comes to private industry, US companies ought to be free to purchase non-US materials, just as EU companies ought to be free to purchase non-EU sourced materials.

When you are talking about government purchases, it's a different story.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:51 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 106):
My position is simple. When it comes to private industry, US companies ought to be free to purchase non-US materials, just as EU companies ought to be free to purchase non-EU sourced materials.

When you are talking about government purchases, it's a different story.

Massive government purchases have been made by European countries for decades. Hundreds of all kinds of flighters, transports, heli's you name it..
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:37 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 71):
Per pound of cargo hauled, the A400 is more expensive than the C-17

That's always true for smaller aircrafts. How is this factor with C130?

According to some reactions it seems the biggest danger for the US are foreign built military planes  Smile

My viewpoint: the USAF shall have what the US wants. I am not in a position to give advices (and if I would it would not be relevant). To some degree I think it is ok to support the own industry for military goods. Its only delicate if certain product-specs can't be met as good with own planes. At the Swiss airforce this happens all the time. It works anyway.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:43 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 108):
According to some reactions it seems the biggest danger for the US are foreign built military planes

deHavilland Canada made about 1600 Beavers, and 900 of them were purchased by the U.S. Army, then used extensively in Korea, Viet Nam. They still buy/bought deHavilland products -- Twin Otters, Dash 8s. The Air Force bought Canberras (B-57s) and the Marines bought Harriers. I'm pretty sure the USAF also used the Canadair Sabre in some squadrons because with the Orenda engine it significantly outperformed the North American version. Generally speaking, if there's no US machine available to do the job, or it's second best -- they'll buy foreign.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 109):
Generally speaking, if there's no US machine available to do the job, or it's second best -- they'll buy foreign.

I agree! IIRC other examples would be Bae Hawk, PC-9. The (license built) PC-9 flies for the US in much higher numbers than US planes in Switzerland!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:34 am

According to the magazine, Airbus has already had to turn down a chance to win a 6 billion euro order for 68 military transport planes because delays in its A400M programme would have prevented it from delivering the aircraft on time.

The U.S. defence ministry has invited Airbus to participate in the tender for the planes, it said.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...0&subject=companies&action=article


Related: the TP400 engine will take to the air for the first time soon.



 
columba
Posts: 5274
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:56 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 102):
A380 is a great plane technically, it's just not superior to everything for twenty years, or whatever nonsense Keesje typed above.

I don' t believe that we will see another A380 sized plane in the next 20 years. For the time being the A380 will be the most superior aircraft of its class.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 111):
Related: the TP400 engine will take to the air for the first time soon.

Wow, the difference in size between the engines is amazing.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 111):
According to the magazine, Airbus has already had to turn down a chance to win a 6 billion euro order for 68 military transport planes because delays in its A400M programme would have prevented it from delivering the aircraft on time.

The U.S. defence ministry has invited Airbus to participate in the tender for the planes, it said.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...0&subject=companies&action=article

Not the first deal they lost, Canada and Australia would have also been potential customers of the A400 if it would have been available earlier.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:22 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 102):
A380 is a great plane technically, it's just not superior to everything for twenty years, or whatever nonsense Keesje typed above.

You read & qouted me wrong. We were comparing C17 to the A380 technology..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
Considering the A380 can't be refuelled in mid air, doesn't have blown flaps and high-impact landing gear for short landing, can't back up unaided on the ground, doesn't have a cargo ramp and handling system, can't engage in secure military communications, and has no defensive warning systems, I'd say the A380 is way overpriced!

I don't anyone is suggesting the A380 to becom a miltairy transport, I only mentioned a C-17 is as expense as an A380 to give an indication..
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:47 pm

The TP400's and scimitar props are integrated for roll out on thursday.



Water ingestion and bird strike testing has also recently been completed at Techspace Aero's Liers site in Belgium. During the latter work, the engine recovered to produce over 80% of its power after being hit by a bird weighing 1.85kg (4lb).
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...itary-a400m-passes-milestones.html

On possible US sales:

Crucially, Durham believes the TP400 will remain the first choice propulsion system should the A400M be offered to meet emerging US military transport requirements, despite recent speculation that a new powerplant could be sought in a bid to increase the percentage of domestic equipment used on the type.

"I don't think it's very likely there'd be a new engine," he says. "This engine has been specifically designed to integrate with this aircraft - to find another one would be very challenging at this time.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ears-up-for-extra-a400m-sales.html
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:20 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 114):
"This engine has been specifically designed to integrate with this aircraft - to find another one would be very challenging at this time.

How much more challenging could another engine be than the current one already has been?
 
columba
Posts: 5274
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:46 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 114):
The TP400's and scimitar props are integrated for roll out on thursday.

Will the aircraft get a paint job until then ?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:25 pm



Quoting Columba (Reply 116):
Will the aircraft get a paint job until then ?

Yes  Wink

Good news is GE is developing a Turboshaft at 8000 hp for the CH53K. The heli is first priority but GE mentions possible fixed wing use.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-future-in-emerging-heavylift.html
 
SP90
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:39 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:02 am

Any chance Boeing or EADS will develop a cargo plane looking like the Terminator series hunter/killers with the tri-tilt-jet? That would be the next logical step after going tilt-rotors right?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:28 pm

Quoting SP90 (Reply 118):
Any chance Boeing or EADS will develop a cargo plane looking like the Terminator series hunter/killers with the tri-tilt-jet? That would be the next logical step after going tilt-rotors right?

Seems unlikely IMO. Those are far sighted programs. The Osprey showed what costs and complications can do to a program. I will take many years of research IMO.

Raw but efficient multirole capasity seems a priority among airforces at this time.

Previous CDA studies assumed a payload of 20 tons and a C-130-size cargo box, but growth in the weight of Army Future Combat Systems vehicles has pushed the requirement closer to 30 tons and an A400M-size cargo box. The merger of JHL with the Air Force’s Advanced Joint Air Combat System requirement under JFTL has also placed a greater emphasis on speed.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Extends%20JHL%20Concept%20Studies

Light high tech war machines like these are driving USAF / Army requirements & the good (but) old Herc cargo deck / platform can't handle it..



[Edited 2008-07-07 06:30:07]
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:41 pm

But in recent weeks, top Air Force officials seemed to waver a bit, saying during a background briefing this week that the C-17B could be an alternative to developing a new tactical aircraft to replace the C-130.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...-plane30-2008aug30,0,1071403.story

A new more powerfull / rough terrain version of the C-17 as replacement of the C-130.

 Confused

Looking emphasis on critical size / capasity in the KC767 vs KC30 tanker business I think this shows remarkable flexibility; 1 x C-17 = ~ 4 x C-130J..
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:59 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 120):
But in recent weeks, top Air Force officials seemed to waver a bit, saying during a background briefing this week that the C-17B could be an alternative to developing a new tactical aircraft to replace the C-130.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...-plane30-2008aug30,0,1071403.story

A new more powerfull / rough terrain version of the C-17 as replacement of the C-130.

A tactical version of the C-17A/ER, the proposed C-17B, would be a slightly smaller airplane. Wouldn't that compete directly with the A-400M more than it would with the C-130J, or C-130J-30?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:48 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):
A tactical version of the C-17A/ER, the proposed C-17B, would be a slightly smaller airplane. Wouldn't that compete directly with the A-400M more than it would with the C-130J, or C-130J-30?



No, I guess it would not.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2817
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:04 pm

Is there anything Boeing can do to cut the costs of the C-17B? The production line and design of the C-17A have been fully depreciated already.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:00 pm



Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 123):
Is there anything Boeing can do to cut the costs of the C-17B? The production line and design of the C-17A have been fully depreciated already.

The cost of the R&D for the B version and any modifications to the A line would be applied to the accounting for the B. Since the B would be a shorter version with different airfoil appendices and landing gear, I am not sure the savings would be that much. However, since 2 17B's would haul more than 7 130J's, there is room for quite a lot of savings.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:49 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 124):
However, since 2 17B's would haul more than 7 130J's, there is room for quite a lot of savings.

Doubt that, what about mission requirement for a 1.5 x C130J load / 30t (that seems to be the case)..

Will congress play a role?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:03 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 125):
Doubt that, what about mission requirement for a 1.5 x C130J load / 30t (that seems to be the case)..

A 1.5 130J load would fit into one 17B.

Will congress play a role?

The only role will be overall funding. Of course after seeing the non-movement on the tanker issue, nothing can be taken for granted.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Well, if Airbus can get the A400M out the door and flying, they may have a shot at a USAF contract, but it sounds like a long shot:

Quote:
The Department of Defense has recently given the USAF authority to buy the first 74 aircraft, including the 14 C-130Js already acquired - although USAF officials say this initial purchase does not predispose them to select the C-130J for the remaining 60 aircraft.

The service plans to complete an acquisition strategy for the HC/MC-130 replacement by next September, in which buying more C-130Js will be considered as one of several options. A multi-aircraft competition, however, is unlikely.

The USAF has ruled out the L-3 Communications/Alenia Aeronautica C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft as a direct C-130 replacement, although it may play a complementary role. And it is unclear if the Airbus Military A400M will be available in time to compete for the HC/MC-130 replacement contract.

[emphasis added]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...emains-at-heart-of-us-airlift.html

But as the article's title implies, it appears the C-130 will remain at the center of military lift capabilities.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:58 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 127):
Well, if Airbus can get the A400M out the door and flying, they may have a shot at a USAF contract, but it sounds like a long shot:

From memory the MC-130s were somewhat more expensive than new A400Ms and are less capable. That being said, EADS in the business plan for the A400M was not expecting to sell any A400Ms to the US, they have already sold half of what they were expecting to sell, and were only planning a production rate of 15 per year.

With over 3000 medium lift aircraft due to replacement in around the world, I think EADS would be better served looking at the smaller contracts where margins are higher. I also expect a slightly longer A400M to be launched, the TP400 engine has thrust to spare.

If the US wanted the A400M, or the slightly stretched version, they would have to be assembled in a new plant, production in Europe is already accounted for years to come.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:17 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 128):
If the US wanted the A400M, or the slightly stretched version, they would have to be assembled in a new plant, production in Europe is already accounted for years to come.

only one more reason for EADS to try to sell it to them. I guess you have heard of power8 plus by now
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:42 pm

New Transports = Euro Invasion, Part Deux?
...

Despite getting slapped in the recent tanker competition, EADS is banking on the market opening up. The consortium is positioning its new A400M prop airlifter to fill an emerging (circa 2015) USAF and U.S. Army need for a large transport capable of carrying 30-ton-plus vehicles such as the MRAP and the Future Combat Systems manned vehicles.



For a while it looked like EADS might have a monopoly on that market, since the only other large in-production airlifter, Boeing's C-17, seemed to be near the end of the line. But now the Air Force is hinting at keeping the C-17 alive. And Lockheed Martin is saying it will slice open and enlarge its venerable C-130 Hercules, creating a so-called "fat Herk" around 2015.

Are we in for another round of supposed competition where the best plane wins, so long as it's made in America?


http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/new-transports.html


I think the theories that a combination of C130J and C-17's just fine can be put to bed now. Boeing and Lockheed both see the light and are proposing aircraft (Fat Herc & C-17B) to fill a gab that no longer can be denied.

[Edited 2008-09-16 08:49:44]
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:27 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 130):
Boeing and Lockheed both see the light and are proposing aircraft (Fat Herc & C-17B) to fill a gap that no longer can be denied.

Who's been denying the gap? I think the only issue has been if that gap can be filled by existing fleet types. It appears that LM and Boeing believe it can be. And the A400M can certainly fill that gap perfectly and without any modifications. But then, by the time the USAF gets around to giving serious consideration to filling that gap, which may still be a decade or more off, they may opt for an all-new build aircraft.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:41 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 131):
Who's been denying the gap? I think the only issue has been if that gap can be filled by existing fleet types.

That would mean no gab..

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 131):
It appears that LM and Boeing believe it can be.

Maybe they are promoting their products. I think LM is proposing a widened aircraft probably with a bigger wing and new engines, no doubt a more up to date nose section will be considered too. That qualifies as a new aircraft in my book. Reading the news it becomes clear they are considering a new aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...kheed-looks-to-widen-hercules.html

Meanwhile GE and others are developping bigger turboshaft like the 8000 shp G38-1B.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-future-in-emerging-heavylift.html
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:14 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
That qualifies as a new aircraft in my book. Reading the news it becomes clear they are considering a new aircraft.

It could very well be a new aircraft. And with 3,000 copies of its highly successful parentage flying, it might very well be a good sell.

On the other hand, Airbus Military is still grappling with the A400M. First flight is still unknown and the program is at least 1 year behind schedule with reports it will be at least 2 years late before first deliveries are made. Moreover, the program is going to lose money unless they sell more copies than they already have, although we don't know how many copies will be required to break even.

Quote:
EADS has already said it will lose money on the A400M unless it can drum up further exports.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited...eds/afx/2008/09/17/afx5435554.html
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:17 am

they'll have it flying by 2015  Wink

at least a lot earlier than any fat herc or C-17B
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:43 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 134):
they'll have it flying by 2015 Wink

at least a lot earlier than any fat herc or C-17B

Are you sure about that?

Quote:
European aerospace firm EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has said it will stop developing the A400M military airlifter if it has to pay fines for delays in the delivery of the plane,

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLK18507020080920
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:18 am

The F-18E/F pioneered how to get a new aircraft through the US acquisition system by calling it a derivative and shaping it like the predecessor but keeping only around 20 percent of the stuff that matters (if that).

The AMERICAN (LM/GE) C-130Z, tailored to the FCS, and built at existing facilities by the no. 1 domestic aerospace lobby (with Boeing basically in the penalty box now for their KC-X shenanigans) would make a pretty compelling story. Even with a new nose, new engines, new wing and a wider body (where does this sound familiar from, hmmm, Hornet program?), type commonality (they will write the manuals to look similar) and supplier base will sound good (when marketing to the customer; the US Congress). Oh, and the engines might be built in Ohio? And it might do 80 percent of what an A-400AM might do for about 60 percent of the cost?

It's tough to say, but I have to think that this would be a favorite in the early betting now.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:48 am



Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 136):
The F-18E/F pioneered how to get a new aircraft through the US acquisition system by calling it a derivative and shaping it like the predecessor but keeping only around 20 percent of the stuff that matters (if that).

The AMERICAN (LM/GE) C-130Z, tailored to the FCS, and built at existing facilities by the no. 1 domestic aerospace lobby (with Boeing basically in the penalty box now for their KC-X shenanigans) would make a pretty compelling story. Even with a new nose, new engines, new wing and a wider body (where does this sound familiar from, hmmm, Hornet program?), type commonality (they will write the manuals to look similar) and supplier base will sound good (when marketing to the customer; the US Congress). Oh, and the engines might be built in Ohio? And it might do 80 percent of what an A-400AM might do for about 60 percent of the cost?

Your arguments sound pretty convincing. One thing that could be a handicap is the fact the western industry has shows to be unable to develop new aircraft within agreed upon financial enveloppe and timing and everybody knows.

Now if the A400 is up and flying next year and touring the USA LM will still be doing powerpoints. As to politics I guess finding the political correct production supply chain would be a priority.

An industrial / political deal EADS/ LM/ NG building major parts at Long Beach or a deal with Boeing IDS? LM wants to sell many JSF's to Europe & it's not a done deal yet.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2817
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:36 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
Maybe they are promoting their products. I think LM is proposing a widened aircraft probably with a bigger wing and new engines, no doubt a more up to date nose section will be considered too. That qualifies as a new aircraft in my book. Reading the news it becomes clear they are considering a new aircraft.

Why not just take a C-17 fuselage, rewing it and put 4 turboprops on it?
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:59 pm

Obviously notional, but I would guess a lot of early work has actually been done already;

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...08/09/picture-meet-the-c130xl.html

The folks at Boeing probably won't just lay down with their AJACS proposals/work, but it seems like they are gearing more to sell this to the Army, rather than the Air Force. I may be wrong, though. This looks like a cross between a C-17, and a C-27 to me;

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ls-advanced-research-projects.html
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4185
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:29 pm



Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 138):
Why not just take a C-17 fuselage, rewing it and put 4 turboprops on it?

Bit of gaffa tape and some tie-wraps for the engines ( I have some rated as capable of 12,000shp) and up we go, no bother!

Fred
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:18 pm



Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 138):
Obviously notional, but I would guess a lot of early work has actually been done already;

Ah, a pic thnx.



I think the end result will be different.

New engines, wing, cockpit section etc.

Maybe this one is a first step in a "maturation" process as Texl1649 descripes.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:05 am

well, LM and Boeing are surely convinced of the A400M regarding their plans.

I think Bill Sweetman has a nice outlook on the situation:

link
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:34 pm

EADS executives expect that - despite the bloody tanker wars, and late flight tests - the USAF and Army will take a serious look at the A400M airlifter. The debut of an A400M model at the Air Force Association convention in Washington DC is the start of a serious campaign to assess US airlift needs and to look for a potential partner to market the new airplane in the US.

The logic is impeccable. EADS knows as well as everybody else that the US Army is buying a boatload of 30-ton vehicles that won't fit in a C-130 without the use of a cutting torch. There are not enough C-17s to move it all, and the official solution to the problem - Joint Heavy Lift, Joint Future Tactical Lift or whatever it is called this month - won't arrive for a decade or more. So Boeing is pitching the C-17B and Lockheed Martin a widebody C-130. But, as EADS observes, the A400M exists (even if it is late) and is fully funded, and could be in US service in useful numbers by 2015.

What seems to be on the cards is a potential contest among the C-17B, the "fat Herc" and the A400M as a stopgap solution. Moreover, an EADS-Lockheed Martin link-up could make it a two-way race.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...404a26-ce7e-4af7-962c-3fee22d6959e

Lockheed Martin could solve the issue of no slots by doing a lot more then assembly. I wonder if GE could produce a 11.000 shp G38 turboshaft variant..
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:04 pm

Found a new video on planning & self protection systems.

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd4_IFmvlUs

Btw I don't have an idea on the Herc TP400 first test flight..
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:31 pm

Bit popular artile but small bits of information:

- Herc flight test next week
- Choice of plane has been criticised after part of the C-130 melted in ground tests.

http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/...RTRIDST_0_EADS-A400M-ANALYSIS.html
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:23 pm

"We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.
...
Peter Scoffham, confirms: "There is still margin. We would be crazy to build to the exact specification."
...
"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...9/327465/a400m-rescue-mission.html

I thought maybe it's a good moment to revive this thread. The aircraft seems technically ok and will probably fly around new yr. The C-17 line is approaching it's end and the C-130 bay has become to small. To help out I sketched a customized A400M variant. Maybe in a few yrs it will be offered to the USAF maybe in partnership with one of the big US OEM's.

 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:56 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 146):
Maybe in a few yrs it will be offered to the USAF maybe in partnership with one of the big US OEM's.

Expect both OEMs to be working on something bigger based on these.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...irst-flight-breaks-new-ground.html

Quote:
"The Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA), which is likely to receive the X-55 designation, also tests a new collaboration arrangement between Lockheed's Skunk Works division and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) that may spark a wave of new flying technology demonstrators, programme officials say.

The envelope expansion phase began after a successful test flight on 2 June of the ACCA platform, a heavily modified and widened Dornier 328Jet, says Barth Shenk, the AFRL's programme manager.

The 87min sortie launched from Palmdale, California, validated the basic flying qualities of the cargo aircraft, made mostly from out-of-autoclave composite materials, programme officials say.

The ACCA adds a cargo door and ramp to the 328Jet, which also is modified with a slightly widened and extended fuselage to accommodate military-standard 463L pallets. A newly designed vertical fin also features integrally stiffened skin."


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...air-force-hopes-for-heavylift.html

Quote:
"AJACS is the air force's solution to the army's requirement to move its Future Combat Systems vehicles around the battlefield. But it is also intended to replace the C-130 in its other roles, including special operations, combat rescue, gunship and tanker.

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is leading the technology acquisition for AJACS, with the aim of flying concept demonstrators by 2015. The effort has been under way since 2002.

AJACS is intended to enable the army's vision of mounted vertical manoeuvre, says the AFRL. The aircraft must be able to operate from short improvised airfields, carrying the army's heavier FCS vehicles, but cruise efficiently at transonic speed.

Key technologies being demonstrated include integrated propulsion, lift and control transonic planform optimisation inlets for embedded high-bypass turbofans multi-role structures and immunity to electromagnetic interference.

Two key projects are the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA), awarded to Lockheed in 2007 and the Speed Agile cruise-efficient STOL demonstration, award of which is imminent. Under ACCA, a Dornier 328Jet modified with composite fuselage and tail is to fly in October.

Speed Agile will involve low- and high-speed windtunnel testing of an AJACS concept combining extreme STOL capability with transonic cruise performance. "We are looking for one platform that can fly efficiently at 90kt for STOL and also cruise above Mach 0.8," says programme manager Cale Zuene. 'It's not VTOL, but very STOL - less than 2,000ft [610m]. We want to get away from established airfields.'

The goal is to take off and land in 460-610m on an improvised airstrip carrying a 30t (65,000lb) payload. This will require a powered lift system, soft-field gear, and integrated propulsion that can prevent or tolerate foreign object damage, says Zuene. The air force is also looking for 'balanced survivablility' against an array of sensors - "infrared, radio-frequency and human'."


The USAF would support this before anything else, having already invested for its research.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:12 am



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 147):
Expect both OEMs to be working on something bigger based on these.....

Looking at the specs mentioned, I think this is very encouraging for EADS.

As linked in reply 3, the ambitious concepts have been flying on screens for some time now.



At some point the USAF will need affordable raw capasity and take lessons learned on the Osprey and Comanche. Then think CH53, Chinook and Lakota.

The 37t A400M has pretty good STOL performance and can do M 0.7.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2746
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Sigh.

NO

Just

NO

The A400M as it exists in hardware has no STOL, has no special ability over the C130 now that the FCS is roundfiled, and you can get C17 for roughly the same price.

The C17 has STOL at A400 capiblity. It has 2x the capiblity of the A400 when you can use decent airports like the USAF does. If the USAF really wanted the best tactical lift it could get, Boeing offered a shorter lighter C17 that maximizes the ability to get into small areas with no improved airfield. So far the USAF has said... "no, not only no, but hell no" They don't want to pay more for less in airlift, and they don't want another subtype to clog up thier paperwork, warehouse shelves, training rosters, etc.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bikerthai and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos