Originally Posted by
Heathrow Harry
regretfully there has hardly been a modern aircraft that hasn't had serious issues - everyone is pushing the envelope harder and harder........
Wait, WHAT? "Pushing the envelope?" REALLY??! This is not rocket science. This is a military
transport airplane. Airbus was contracted to design and build a military transport aircraft that would do things other transport aircraft have been doing for more than half a century. C-17 has been doing them for about a quarter century. Sadly, the C-17s that the RAF already own can do all the tactical things the A400 is supposed to do (and more), but the RAF is prohibited from doing them. How does that even remotely make sense?
TBF I don't think dropping paratroops is really very relevant in this day and age
The big selling point of the A400 was it's TACTICAL capabilities. So yes,
very relevant. And the problem is not just with dropping troops. It seems to be struggling to drop equipment/supplies. Airdrop of personnel and equipment is supposed to be the bread and butter of a military airlifter. Clearly Airbus did not think things through when they offered this airplane to the various governments. They appear to have actually thought they could design a basic cargo/passenger transport and then scab on the various tactical capabilities later on. Sadly, a lot of those capabilities need to be designed in from the start, not added on. And now this "add on" strategy is biting them. Hard. Which is kinda sad. The basic airplane is a remarkable bit of engineering.
And why did Airbus go with a turboprop design? The required powerplant needed tremendous development money. Had they gone with CFM-56s in a C-17 style nacelle the money spent to develop the engine, gearbox, props, etc could have gone to designing in the tactical capabilities from the start. And it would have had equal or likely better tactical capabilities than what the turboprops could provide. This seems like a poorly managed program from the get-go.