Airbus A400M Lifter

strfyr51 · Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:52 pm

Airbus has finally delivered the A400M to the french air force. They're now exploring sales outside the EU but they have No Idea what an A400M might Cost to Buy. I read the article in the recent Aviation Week Magazine. In the Last Paragraph they alluded that Airbus would like to pitch the airplane to the Pentagon to replace the C130 series .
After doing what they could to Keep US Equipment off of that airplane? I'm Wondering WHY on Earth the US Air force would want that thing?
To keep the rudder small they put the 2 engines on each wing counter roataing the inboard engine is clockwise and the outboard counter clockwise. Homeywell proposed a FADEC engine control system to them coupled with the Pratt 5000 SHP turboprop. Which they rejected and proceeded to spend 3 years "cobbling" their own together ,
An Americanized version of the A400M for the US military?? Would be a Brand NEW Airplane!!
Since to looks like the C141 with Props?
Lockheed could replace the C130, With a newer version of the C141 with Props and forget the A400M all together!!.

Francoflier · Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:25 am

I presume the article in question is this one:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_02_17_2014_p15-660128.xml

If I presume correctly, then that's quite the grandiloquent swagger...

"In the same vein, ADS executives remain mum about a long-harbored hope to convince the Pentagon that an Americanized A400M could be the right aircraft to succeed the C-130. Remembering the U.S. Air Force tanker controversy and the ensuing cacophonous political rhetoric about economic patriotism, this is certainly not the right moment to initiate such a delicate discussion

And if your reaction is anything to go by, it seems they're quite right.

I find it amusing, but not surprising, to read that Airbus doesn't really know how to price the aircraft yet if it had to sell it to a customer outside the program. It ws simply not conceived as a commercial program, just a joint European military program contracted to Airbus, who hopes it can eventually convert it into a commercial venture once all the dust settles.

Besides, they don't need to have a list price. These purchases are never for the aircraft alone, but rather for a package including support, training, maintenance, etc. Potential customers are relatively few and each would be the subject of intense and tailored negotiations. Even if they had a list price, it would be a fairly academic figure...

PhilBy · Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:41 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Thread starter):
After doing what they could to Keep US Equipment off of that airplane?

Don't forget that the 'they' here is OCCAR, not Airbus.

strfyr51 · Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:52 pm

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 2):
Don't forget that the 'they' here is OCCAR, not Airbus.

And the difference was?? Was the A400M NOT built by Airbus??
Have we in the USA done that to Rolls or MTU or Snecma?
Airbus got into the Tanker competition because they had some Congressmen in their pocket.
Boeing had to finally play their Trump card and cut their percieved profit. (which by the way they'll make up handsomely in parts and support)
They actually SHOULD have bid the 767-300 for the KC-46 and bid the 777-200LR to replace the KC-10's all in a single package at a price NOBODY could beat.!

moo · Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:11 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3):
Airbus got into the Tanker competition because they had some Congressmen in their pocket.

Its no wonder some people get a bad rep here on a.net, with nationalistic rubbish like that.

I assume you have conveniently forgotten the abysmal costs associated with the first tanker agreement back in 2001 that made each tanker more costly to lease (which was proposed by Boeing) than finance and buy outright, or that several Boeing execs went to prison for espionage after the first round of tanker bids that Airbus was involved in?

Max Q · Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:10 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Thread starter):
To keep the rudder small they put the 2 engines on each wing counter roataing the inboard engine is clockwise and the outboard counter clockwise.

Yes,and its a very good design.

Quoting strfyr51 (Thread starter):
Homeywell proposed a FADEC engine control system to them coupled with the Pratt 5000 SHP turboprop. Which they rejected and proceeded to spend 3 years "cobbling" their own together ,

So what, typical production screw ups that are very common in the US as well.

Point is, its a superb Aircraft, in its category there's simply no competition, the C130-J, as good as it is
does not compare.

strfyr51 · Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:12 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
Point is, its a superb Aircraft, in its category there's simply no competition, the C130-J, as good as it is
does not compare.

The C130 Herk never Had to compete, there wasn't an airplane in it's class except for the AN14 which wasn't widely exported.
Airbus like always comes in after the fact . Builds an airplane with 60 Years LATER empirical data and says
"we have a better airplane".. Really?? Do you now? And How would you KNOW??
The Herc has been around since the 1950's has some 15 versions with 2300+ airframes built and Airbus want's to kick it to the curb?? I seriously doubt it!
The mission of the A400M was invented by the C130, Nobody knows yet if the airplane is any good, what the reliability is or might be or if it's rugged, enough to hang with the C130 in any Configuration.
When the A400M works as a gunship a tanker, a hurricane hunter, goes to anarctica on skis, does desert electronic survelence, Radar picket and Lands on a carrier? Then We'll see!1 Until then?? It's just another "ME TOO" airplane.
It hasn't proven itself yet The A400M has no pedegree.

rlwynn · Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:31 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):
The A400M has no pedegree.

Transall

kc135topboom · Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:05 pm

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 7):
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):The A400M has no pedegree.
Transall

No sir. The A-400 is the replacement for the C-160. The company Transall was a collaboration of French and German companies Nord, VFW, and HFB formed a decade before Airbus.

Initial production of the C-160D/F/Z (160 airplanes) aircraft ended in 1972. France later ordered some (54?) C-160NG, built by Aerospatiale and MBB in 1977, they were delivered by 1984.

flyingwaeldar · Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:24 am

Nice little Airbus / A400 bashing thread you have going here.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):
The mission of the A400M was invented by the C130

Or maybe it was invented by the Messerschmitt Me 323 long before the C130.

ssteve · Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:40 am

Quoting moo (Reply 4):
or that several Boeing execs went to prison for espionage after the first round of tanker bids that Airbus was involved in?

Not that I should be picking this not when the other guy is so irredeemably loony, but the charges weren't "espionage."

And in hopes of segueing from the beaten-dead-horse tanker stuff....

C-17 line ending should help sell A-400s, no?

rlwynn · Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:45 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
No sir. The A-400 is the replacement for the C-160. The company Transall was a collaboration of French and German companies Nord, VFW, and HFB formed a decade before Airbus.

Initial production of the C-160D/F/Z (160 airplanes) aircraft ended in 1972. France later ordered some (54?) C-160NG, built by Aerospatiale and MBB in 1977, they were delivered by 1984.

All those companies now make up EADS. The last C-160s were built in Toulouse. So, Yes Sir.

Max Q · Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:41 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):
The A400M has no pedegree.

Think you meant to say 'Pedigree'

Anyway, the A400 simply hasn't had a chance to prove it self in many different roles yet but it will.
Its early, in service performance has been very impressive however.

strfyr51 · Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:53 am

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10):
C-17 line ending should help sell A-400s, no?

anywhere but the USA, Yes..

cmb56 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:26 pm

If we compare the number of US military aircraft programs that have gone grossly over budget and behind schedule with the number of Airbus military projects that have likewise gone over budget and behind schedule the US wins by maybe 100 to 1. We live in a glass house and have no business throwing stones. Get over it.

redflyer · Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:28 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Thread starter):
After doing what they could to Keep US Equipment off of that airplane? I'm Wondering WHY on Earth the US Air force would want that thing?

I think the USAF would love to buy that thing...if they had the money. It's the politicians that will howl in protest. I used to doubt it a few years ago, but I definitely believe that if the A400's production line is open long enough we will see her eventually in USAF insignia.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10):
C-17 line ending should help sell A-400s, no?

And this is the single most important reason why I think we'll eventually see the A400 in the USAF inventory.

na · Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:41 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3):
Airbus got into the Tanker competition because they had some Congressmen in their pocket.

What a one-eyed nationalistic view. Well if Airbus got some in their pocket, Boeing surely has dozens in their pockets. Bet on it. It surely took a lot to convince the USAF, used to always buy the latest technology, to opt for the ancient 767, which is largely obsolete on the civilian market.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10):
C-17 line ending should help sell A-400s, no?

Is the C-17 line closure set in stone or still reversable?
Not that it matters but I always think the C-17 is the cutest looking military plane out there.

strfyr51 · Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:30 pm

Quoting na (Reply 16):
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3):
Airbus got into the Tanker competition because they had some Congressmen in their pocket.

What a one-eyed nationalistic view. Well if Airbus got some in their pocket, Boeing surely has dozens in their pockets. Bet on it. It surely took a lot to convince the USAF, used to always buy the latest technology, to opt for the ancient 767, which is largely obsolete on the civilian market.

If you believe that then why did Boeing cut their profit margin to get the contract and why didn't EADS cut their profit margin to counter.?? The fact WAS that John McCain and a few Southern Senators made the Airforce give credence to the A330's extra cargo capacity while Disallowing Boeing to bid the B767-300 airframe or the B777 which would have beaten the A330 in EVERY facet of operation. (Since McCain heads the Armed Services appropriations Committee in the Senate)
Boeing went to the GAO to review the Bid award and the GAO MADE the Airforce re-bid the contract where Boeing Beat Airbus on Price alone knowing they would make their money up on the Services , parts and engineering. services.
Plus the KC46's are coming with Advanced avionics.
And the fact that the B767 fits in the SAME Hangar and ramp footprint that the KC135 had,
Also?? Since they're spending US Taxpayer monies? They'd BETTER buy American in the first place!!
And while We're at it??
The A400 would face a Brand NEW American designed airframe for bid on any USA DOD contract.
EADS built that airplane without any USA content? Then they can FLY it in EUROPE for the same reason..
It's Not Nationalistic, but I pay taxes for Americans to get an even shot at the title,
Airbus protects their Butts in Europe with their loans.. Why shouldn't WE??
Get your DOD budgets together and you won't Need to sell or demand your way into the USA DOD procurement pool.
Eurocopter sold to the US Army and the Coast guard so it's Not like We're kept you out completely.
But, Iif you're going to win?? Then do it Straight up and no demanding Extra Credit for an overbuilt airplane...
The B767 HAD no directly comparable competitor, and Certainly NOT the A330 MRTT

DeltaMD90 · Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:30 pm

Quoting na (Reply 16):
What a one-eyed nationalistic view. Well if Airbus got some in their pocket, Boeing surely has dozens in their pockets. Bet on it. It surely took a lot to convince the USAF, used to always buy the latest technology, to opt for the ancient 767, which is largely obsolete on the civilian market.

Call me an elitist American, but I don't see why it's so crazy the United States Air Force bought a plane made by a United States company. Nothing against the A330 (love the plane) but the KC-46 undoubtedly helps the US economy out

breiz · Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:11 pm

Just as an indication of the operational test process of the A400M, on April 23rd, the heaviest vehicle available in the French Army was loaded o/b MSN 007: a 29 t, 7.8 m long 8x8 VBCI ( Armoured vehicle for infantry combat).
The next heavy load will be the German Army Puma weighing 32 t.

Max Q · Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:06 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 17):
Quoting na (Reply 16):
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3):
Airbus got into the Tanker competition because they had some Congressmen in their pocket.

What a one-eyed nationalistic view. Well if Airbus got some in their pocket, Boeing surely has dozens in their pockets. Bet on it. It surely took a lot to convince the USAF, used to always buy the latest technology, to opt for the ancient 767, which is largely obsolete on the civilian market.

If you believe that then why did Boeing cut their profit margin to get the contract and why didn't EADS cut their profit margin to counter.?? The fact WAS that John McCain and a few Southern Senators made the Airforce give credence to the A330's extra cargo capacity while Disallowing Boeing to bid the B767-300 airframe or the B777 which would have beaten the A330 in EVERY facet of operation. (Since McCain heads the Armed Services appropriations Committee in the Senate)
Boeing went to the GAO to review the Bid award and the GAO MADE the Airforce re-bid the contract where Boeing Beat Airbus on Price alone knowing they would make their money up on the Services , parts and engineering. services.
Plus the KC46's are coming with Advanced avionics.
And the fact that the B767 fits in the SAME Hangar and ramp footprint that the KC135 had,
Also?? Since they're spending US Taxpayer monies? They'd BETTER buy American in the first place!!
And while We're at it??
The A400 would face a Brand NEW American designed airframe for bid on any USA DOD contract.
EADS built that airplane without any USA content? Then they can FLY it in EUROPE for the same reason..
It's Not Nationalistic, but I pay taxes for Americans to get an even shot at the title,
Airbus protects their Butts in Europe with their loans.. Why shouldn't WE??
Get your DOD budgets together and you won't Need to sell or demand your way into the USA DOD procurement pool.
Eurocopter sold to the US Army and the Coast guard so it's Not like We're kept you out completely.
But, Iif you're going to win?? Then do it Straight up and no demanding Extra Credit for an overbuilt airplane...
The B767 HAD no directly comparable competitor, and Certainly NOT the A330 MRTT

Well said and its important to remember that while the design of the B767 may be 'ancient' it is a superb one.
It's reliable, rugged, economical and, unlike the A330 has no hard flight control limits, very useful in a Military Aircraft.

There is simply no other available Aircraft that can provide such performance in such a relatively small airframe.The best choice really if money had been no object would have been the 787-8 but money and availability is an issue and always will be.

The A330 design is no spring chicken now either and it's way too big to be a KC135 replacement.

KarelXWB · Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:14 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
best choice would have been the 787-8

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
The A330 design is way too big to be a KC135 replacement.

The A330-200 and 787-8 are about the same in size

scbriml · Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:45 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Thread starter):
To keep the rudder small they put the 2 engines on each wing counter roataing the inboard engine is clockwise and the outboard counter clockwise.

Are you trying to say "down between engines"?

It's a wonderful configuration that allows all four engines to be identical (two are fitted with gearboxes to reverse the prop rotation direction) and gives some significant benefits - increased lift generation, reduced torque and propwash on the wings and reduced yaw in the event of a failed outboard engine. All these factors combined allow the rudder to be smaller than would otherwise be required.

Yet you seem to see this as a disadvantage?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
Its early, in service performance has been very impressive however.

We must be careful not to let facts get in the way.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 17):
Also?? Since they're spending US Taxpayer monies? They'd BETTER buy American in the first place!!
And while We're at it??

Your keyboard appears to have an issue with sticking.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 17):
It's Not Nationalistic, but I pay taxes for Americans to get an even shot at the title

The volume of non-American equipment purchased by the US armed forces must really grind your gears.

smittyone · Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:18 pm

Quoting na (Reply 16):
Not that it matters but I always think the C-17 is the cutest looking military plane out there.

Agreed! Love seeing them come over my house.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
The volume of non-American equipment purchased by the US armed forces must really grind your gears.

I remember the Army had a big flap a few years ago about the source of the felt used in their new berets. IIRC they destroyed a whole bunch of them over it. So silly.

At the end of the day simply building more C-17s and/or C-130s might be the smarter choice (even if not as advanced as the A400) simply because all the logistics, training etc. are already in place.

DeltaMD90 · Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:48 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
The volume of non-American equipment purchased by the US armed forces must really grind your gears.

"Made in America" shouldn't be a deal breaker, but why is it so wild and immoral that it goes into the equation? I would hardly blame X country from being a bit biased towards products from X country. The USAF was supporting an American company and still got a quality tanker

smittyone · Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:23 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):

"Made in America" shouldn't be a deal breaker, but why is it so wild and immoral that it goes into the equation? I would hardly blame X country from being a bit biased towards products from X country. The USAF was supporting an American company and still got a quality tanker

Indeed, it is a stated objective of the government's procurement systems to promote buying from US companies, small businesses, women/minority owned, blind/disabled etc...because the people who make the laws via their elected officials have decreed it to be so. It's not a matter of flag waving or elitism but simply following the law! Nothing wrong with it, but sometimes taken to silly extremes as in the case of the felt for the berets!

There are also strategic implications to outsourcing but in the world of global integration of everything and long-standing alliances that seems perhaps less critical in 2014 than it may have been previously.

[Edited 2014-04-30 09:25:57]

autothrust · Fri May 02, 2014 12:23 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):
Airbus like always comes in after the fact . Builds an airplane with 60 Years LATER empirical data and says
"we have a better airplane".. Really?? Do you now? And How would you KNOW??
The Herc has been around since the 1950's has some 15 versions with 2300+ airframes built and Airbus want's to kick it to the curb?? I seriously doubt it!

Sorry but you can't be serious with the BS you are posting?

With that kind of arguing a F-22 or F-35 would never be a better plane over a F-16. They did come much later, are not combat proved but would kill a F-16 in a combat in seconds.

And are definitly a better plane.

Quoting flyingwaeldar (Reply 9):
Or maybe it was invented by the Messerschmitt Me 323 long before the C130.

Indeed.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
It's a wonderful configuration that allows all four engines to be identical (two are fitted with gearboxes to reverse the prop rotation direction) and gives some significant benefits - increased lift generation, reduced torque and propwash on the wings and reduced yaw in the event of a failed outboard engine. All these factors combined allow the rudder to be smaller than would otherwise be required.

Yet you seem to see this as a disadvantage?

Only people without any knowledge of the A400 can see this as a disadvantage.

Quoting strfyr51 (Thread starter):
Homeywell proposed a FADEC engine control system to them coupled with the Pratt 5000 SHP turboprop.

As i know you have no idea i would like to inform you the TP400 is the most modern Turboprop and most powerful single-rotation turboprop. It has also FADEC and is equipped with newest combustion technology.

The fuel efficiency is a class of its own.

The delays were mostly attributed to the civil certification of the FADEC Software and certification to the newest most stringent MIL-STD.

The A400M features technical innovations in all areas, from the airframe structure and materials
to its aerodynamic design, its all new turboprop engine, its fly-by-wire controls and related
advanced flight-deck.

It is technically the most advanced military transport ever built.

It can refuel helicopters aswell fighters can the C-130 do that?

It can cruise almost as fast as a Jetliner.

The A400M had a high dispatch reliability of 98.7 per cent at entry into service.

But yes it's Airbus fault that it didnt exist 60 years ago and that makes it a chinese copy of the C-130 and C-17.

Revelation · Fri May 02, 2014 2:32 pm

Quoting smittyone (Reply 23):
At the end of the day simply building more C-17s and/or C-130s might be the smarter choice (even if not as advanced as the A400) simply because all the logistics, training etc. are already in place.

That in fact has already happened by Congress supplying more C-130s than the USAF requested. Add to that the draw down of Iraq and Afghanistan and (hopefully) no more foreign wars in the near/mid term and there is no problem to be solved.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 26):
It can refuel helicopters aswell fighters can the C-130 do that?

A400M is a fine a/c and so is C-130. USMC uses C-130 to refuel both helicopters and fighters:

autothrust · Fri May 02, 2014 4:20 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
A400M is a fine a/c and so is C-130. USMC uses C-130 to refuel both helicopters and fighters:

Thank you for pointing this i didn't know that.

However the fighters have to slow down pretty much and also in a low altitude. Whereas the A400M can cruise at 0.68–0.72Mach.

Also at low altitudes it can slow to less than 110 knots to refuel several kind of helicopters -- that is 20 knots slower than the approach speed of a small jetliner.

I agree the C-130 is a great ac, however IMO it's a obsolete design.

Revelation · Fri May 02, 2014 6:22 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 28):
I agree the C-130 is a great ac, however IMO it's a obsolete design.

C-130 does what it needs to do and does it well. It also fits in well with the rest of the USAF platforms. A400M is a good match for the EU forces that drove its design requirements but not necessarily for others, especially considering its cost. To quote AvWeek:

Quote:

The difficulty for Airbus Military is that, while less expensive than a C-17, the A400M is still too costly for all but the most well-heeled of the world’s militaries. Big aircraft need big budgets, and much of the world is cutting defense expenditures and rationalizing or pooling strategic transport capabilities.

The current sweet spot in the transport market is favors smaller aircraft, in the space largely owned by Lockheed Martin’s C-130J. The international replacement market for older model C-130s is expected to grow in coming years, and several manufacturers are developing designs aimed at replacing the large numbers of older C-130s and aging Soviet-era Antonov An-12s expected to be retired by air arms around the world.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/awin/a400m-k...-reshape-military-transport-market

The report is from 2011 but the market fundamentals haven't changed, certainly not in a direction that favors the A400M. In fact Germany's decision to not take up all its A400Ms is a pretty vivid demonstration of how even "well-heeled" militaries find the A400M to be fiscally challenging.

rlwynn · Fri May 02, 2014 9:16 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 28):
However the fighters have to slow down pretty much and also in a low altitude. Whereas the A400M can cruise at 0.68–0.72Mach.

Also at low altitudes it can slow to less than 110 knots to refuel several kind of helicopters -- that is 20 knots slower than the approach speed of a small jetliner.

I agree the C-130 is a great ac, however IMO it's a obsolete design.

The tanker speed envelope for the Hercules is 100-270kts.

For the A400 it is 105-300kts.

Max Q · Fri May 02, 2014 10:10 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
The A330-200 and 787-8 are about the same in size

The wing span is similar but that version of the 787-8 is eight feet shorter than the Airbus,
More importantly a 787 tanker would have offered a quantum leap in performance and a
far more modern aircraft that will be in production for decades .

sprout5199 · Fri May 02, 2014 10:42 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 28):
I agree the C-130 is a great ac, however IMO it's a obsolete design.

???? a high wing, 4 turboprop design? Cuz the A400M has a T tail and the C-130 Doesn't?

Quoting flyingwaeldar (Reply 9):
Or maybe it was invented by the Messerschmitt Me 323 long before the C130.

Really? front loading radial design VS a rear loading turboprop? Why not mention the Vickers Vernon? Of course every aircraft is an improvement of one the flew before it. The only one that wasn't was the Wright Flyer.

Yes the A400M is a great aircraft. Did "nationalistic pride" get in the way causing cost overruns? of course, like what happens here in the states.

I think Airbus needs to worry more about the KC-390 more than the C-130. I can see the USAF buying it before the A400M.

Dan in Jupiter

Max Q · Sat May 03, 2014 7:50 am

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 32):
I think Airbus needs to worry more about the KC-390 more than the C-130. I can see the USAF buying it before the A400M.

I don't think so. You know the KC-390 is very limited in operating from unimproved fields, in fact there is a finite limit on these landings.

Not much point in trying to replace a rugged, jack of all trades aircraft like the C130 with such a delicate machine.

Revelation · Sat May 03, 2014 1:00 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 33):
You know the KC-390 is very limited in operating from unimproved fields

Personally, I think the 'unimproved' argument is over stated.

For instance, here's a pic of the A400M in Mali:

Ref: http://www.airnews.co.za/News/2014_F...ional-teeth-on-flight-to-mali.html

Yes, it's not KDEN, but it's also not "unimproved", it's quite improved over bogs, meadows, tundra, scrublands, forests, etc. My point is not to diss the Mali mission, but to point out that any military commander would be nuts to risk an important (and very expensive) asset by landing it on truly unimproved turf. Even the C130s that land on ice are landing on ice that has been "improved" by plows. Same can be said of the footage I've seen of C130s in Vietnam - definitely not commercial grade facilities off the base, but still not "unimproved".

mffoda · Sat May 03, 2014 6:15 pm

Regarding cost, here is a link from the French Senate.

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a12-150-8/a12-150-814.html

2 military transport plane A400M -. Subaction 8 * 42

This program has been the subject of two information from your commission reports, the last in July 42( * ) . It would be redundant here to reproduce the findings.

Just remember that the cost of the program for France is 8.8 billion € 2012 , which places the unit cost of each aircraft for the French Air Force (excluding development) to € 150 million 2012 .

So, we have 150 million Euro per A/C. 150M euros = $208 Million dollars ($1.39 exchange rate today).

They also state the program cost is 8.8 Billion Euros. 8.8B / 50 Aircraft = 176 Million euros per A/C.

That makes it just over $244 Million per A/C that France is spending on their A400M's.

It really makes you wounder what the foreign sale price will be...

XT6Wagon · Sun May 04, 2014 5:38 am

That looks like a prepared airport.

"unimproved" means some farmer's field, a beach, etc.

Taking the rocks out and filling in the holes goes a long way to making a field into an airport.

Max Q · Sun May 04, 2014 6:05 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
For instance, here's a pic of the A400M in Mali:

Er, so what ?

It went to Mali, just because the A400 landed at a 'less than regular' airport doesn't mean it can't land at an unimproved one !

[Edited 2014-05-03 23:14:33]

Revelation · Sun May 04, 2014 2:12 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 37):
It went to Mali, just because the A400 landed at a 'less than regular' airport doesn't mean it can't land at an unimproved one !

Sure, but my point is:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
My point is not to diss the Mali mission, but to point out that any military commander would be nuts to risk an important (and very expensive) asset by landing it on truly unimproved turf.

Thus:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
I think the 'unimproved' argument is over stated.

autothrust · Mon May 05, 2014 7:57 am

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 32):
a high wing, 4 turboprop design? Cuz the A400M has a T tail and the C-130 Doesn't?

The same arguing like the A380 is just a big plane, what's the difference?

The C-130 is obsolete in terms of avionics, systems, propulsion, self defence.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
C-130 does what it needs to do and does it well. It also fits in well with the rest of the USAF platforms.

It does a excellent job i agree, however technology wise it's outdated.

strfyr51 · Mon May 05, 2014 10:03 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 39):
The C-130 is obsolete in terms of avionics, systems, propulsion, self defence.

Have you seen the cockpit of the C130 J models?? I think you're mistaken, ,the engines are new as well and the A440 comes in a gunship?? Since when?!? What are you doing? because the C130 has been around since the 1950's it's venerable however Nobody flies the C130 A/B/C's anymore. they're all down at Davis-Montham.

Revelation · Mon May 05, 2014 12:18 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 39):
It does a excellent job i agree, however technology wise it's outdated.

We can see with A400M what happens when you go all out with the technology in a military program: you end up with a system that takes a lot of time and money to develop and one that ends up being bought in small numbers because it's so damn expensive. I feel the same way about F-22 and F-35 too.

autothrust · Mon May 05, 2014 1:53 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 40):
Have you seen the cockpit of the C130 J models

Yes i have seen it. Not comparable to the complexity and sophistication of the A400M Avionics.

Have you seen the A400M avionic systems?

It goes from Enhanced Vision System to automated CG calculation, fully automated defensive aids systems, simple EMCOM switching,
automated tanker and receiver fuel control and auto fuel tank inerting. IMA with Network (A380 technology)
terrain-masking low-level flight system, FBW with Envelope, weather and navigation radar which incorporates windshear measurement and ground mapping capability, variable frequency generators, MMMS, Centralised Crypto Management System, 3000psi hydraulics etc..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
We can see with A400M what happens when you go all out with the technology in a military program: you end up with a system that takes a lot of time and money to develop and one that ends up being bought in small numbers because it's so damn expensive. I feel the same way about F-22 and F-35 too.

Couldn't agree more, the more advanced, capable this planes become, the more nightmarish they are to develop and to aquire.

The FADEC of the A400M alone has twice as much programming codes then the GE-90!

Imagine WW2 when a plane did cost 4000-5000$.

Max Q · Wed May 07, 2014 6:53 am

That's all well and good. No question the A400 is an impressive machine but it doesn't mean the C130-J is still not an extremely capable aircraft, furthermore it competes in a smaller size ,payload and last but not least, price. It certainly isn't obsolete.

There is a niche for both aircraft, the A400 is way too much expensive capability for many customers and missions.

autothrust · Thu May 08, 2014 12:55 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 43):
but it doesn't mean the C130-J is still not an extremely capable aircraft

It is a very capable aircraft.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 43):
It certainly isn't obsolete.

Technically it is which is no wonder for it's age. Even the C-130J Model is a great improvement it is a warmed over design and not cleansheet with newest aerodynamics and systems.

The same as the 737NG (besides avionics) the fuselage and hydraulics and structure design.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 43):
There is a niche for both aircraft, the A400 is way too much expensive capability for many customers and missions.

I agree fully with that. However the A400M price would drop if more were sold. Also the development costs can be written off.

Max Q · Thu May 08, 2014 8:24 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 44):

Technically it is which is no wonder for it's age. Even the C-130J Model is a great improvement it is a warmed over design and not cleansheet with newest aerodynamics and systems.

Just because you don't have all the latest advances on an Aircraft that doesn't make it obsolete. You can call it 'warmed over'
I would say a more accurate description is that the C130 is a very reliable workhorse that has been constantly developed and is extremely good at what it does.

Obsolete implies lack of practical usefullness because of outdated design, that is just not true for the C130-J and the niche it occupies.

zeke · Thu May 08, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 42):
Have you seen the A400M avionic systems?

It is not your typical individual LRU setup, best described as a blade server with various software applications.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 43):
There is a niche for both aircraft, the A400 is way too much expensive capability for many customers and missions.

The closest C130 to the A400M is the MC-130J (which is built on the KC-130J), many countries cannot afford to have aircraft that are not multi-role. I believe the MC-130J is actually more expensive then an A400M.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 45):
Obsolete implies lack of practical usefullness because of outdated design, that is just not true for the C130-J and the niche it occupies.

As the types of wars are changing, equipment has adapted. The soft of vehicle the C130 used to be able to carry, are no longer used, larger heavier vehicles are used as tactics have changed.

Max Q · Thu May 08, 2014 7:19 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):

As the types of wars are changing, equipment has adapted. The soft of vehicle the C130 used to be able to carry, are no longer used, larger heavier vehicles are used as tactics have changed.

So the C130 can carry the smaller vehicles, problem solved.

Aesma · Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
Call me an elitist American, but I don't see why it's so crazy the United States Air Force bought a plane made by a United States company. Nothing against the A330 (love the plane) but the KC-46 undoubtedly helps the US economy out

Well the thread starter is almost insulting Airbus/European countries for having chosen to make the A400M without US parts, a bit hypocritical ! As far as I know many US military programs are by design made in as many states as possible, sometimes all of them, to gather as much political support as possible, then these aircraft/arms are still offered and sold all over the world, I don't see why Airbus shouldn't do the same.

Revelation · Thu May 08, 2014 11:24 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 48):
Well the thread starter is almost insulting Airbus/European countries for having chosen to make the A400M without US parts, a bit hypocritical !

I think the point being made is that the US should not buy a military a/c that has gone out of its way to avoid US content. Doing so would reward that practice. That too is a bit hypocritical given that the US politicians pressure US vendors to favor US content then expect non-US entities to buy that hardware. We see in some programs such as F-35 there is a large degree of non-US content and labor. IMHO that's a better model. It's interesting to note that A400M has large French and German participation and less UK participation, whereas on F-35 it is the opposite, lots of UK and no DE/FR.

Personally, I'm still surprised that EU pols thought it was worth the money to put up their own GPS satellite network. It's a huge amount of money for what I think of as a really small risk. They (and the rest of the world, IMHO) would have been better off spending the money to make a natural gas pipeline that doesn't end in Russia, IMHO.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net