Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Yet another RAF whitewash- A400 is simply unfit for purpose.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Yet another RAF whitewash- A400 is simply unfit for purpose.

Old 10th Sep 2022, 22:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 222
Received 24 Likes on 9 Posts
Yet another RAF whitewash- A400 is simply unfit for purpose.

https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/...t-enjoying-it/
Baldeep Inminj is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2022, 22:51
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,633
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
Parts of the article appear to bear a pretty tenuous relationship to fact.

"Not The First Surface Corrosion Issues at Airbus" is a fairly pathetic attempt to equate the alleged A400M corrosion issues to the Qatar A350 paint erosion problems.

Sloppy journalism exemplified.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 01:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,499
Received 33 Likes on 19 Posts
well it may be "unfit or purpose" but it's all there is - in fact it's the only large military freighter still in production anywhere I think
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 01:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 74
Posts: 17,789
Received 146 Likes on 59 Posts
Unfit does not change even if it is the only game in town.....it remains "unfit" by definition.

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.
SASless is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 07:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,714
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Unfit does not change even if it is the only game in town.....it remains "unfit" by definition.

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.
Er, the RAF currently flies the C-130 Hercules, the A400 Atlas and the C-17 Globemaster.

Current plans are to retire the Hercules in 2023 and acquire additional A400 Atlas.

Not sure what your point is?

pr00ne is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 07:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,124
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Not sure what your point is?
Maybe he thought it was the KC-46 thread?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 07:59
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Unfit does not change even if it is the only game in town.....it remains "unfit" by definition.

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.
Excellent points sasless.
dervish is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 08:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,633
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
well it may be "unfit or purpose" but it's all there is - in fact it's the only large military freighter still in production anywhere I think
Embraer C-390 ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 08:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The South
Age: 57
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think someone needs to understand the difference between corrosion and erosion.
FloaterNorthWest is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 09:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,499
Received 33 Likes on 19 Posts
"Embraer C-390 ?

Waiting for the inevitable stretch I think - but it will have to be a BIG one

TBH I always thought the decision to stop building the C-17 was a mistake... they could still be selling them
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 10:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 454
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"Embraer C-390 ?

Waiting for the inevitable stretch I think - but it will have to be a BIG one

TBH I always thought the decision to stop building the C-17 was a mistake... they could still be selling them
Why? Looks pretty useful to me. The only questions in my mind are, can it do the jobs that the C130 does but the A400 can't do and are two engines what you realy want going into combat zones?

Specifications C-390 Millennium
General characteristics

Crew: Three flight crew (Two pilots, one loadmaster)
Capacity: 80 troops / 74 stretchers and 8 attendants / 66 paratroopers / 7 463L master pallets / 6 463L master pallets and 36 troops
Max takeoff weight: 86,999 kg (191,800 lb)
Useful lift: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb)
Maximum speed: 988 km/h (614 mph, 533 kn)
Cruise speed: 870 km/h (540 mph, 470 kn) Mach 0.8
Range: 5,820 km (3,610 mi, 3,140 nmi) with 14,000 kg (30,865 lb) payload
Range alt: 2,820 km (1,520 nmi) with 23,000 kg (51,000 lb) payload
Range alt2: 2,110 km (1,140 nmi) with 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) payload
Ferry range: 8,500 km (5,300 mi, 4,600 nmi) max. with aux. fuel tanks; norma

Looks better than the C130J
General characteristics

Crew: 3 (two pilots, and one loadmaster are minimum crew)
Capacity:
64 airborne troops or
6 pallets or
74 litter patients with 5 medical personnel
Payload main: 42,000 lb (19,051 kg)
Maximum speed: 362 kn (417 mph, 670 km/h) ó Mach 0.59 at 22,000 ft (6,706 m) altitude
Cruise speed: 348 kn (400 mph, 644 km/h)
Range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km) at max normal payload (34,000 lb (15,422 kg))
Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m) with 42,000 lb (19,051 kg) payload
Absolute ceiling: 40,386 ft (12,310 m)[164]

We will always be remembered for the first air force in the world to retire the C130 and the DC3.
WB627 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 10:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 285
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At a casual glance the C-390 appears much smaller than it actually is, the huge cockpit windows are very deceptive.
k3k3 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 10:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 704
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Japan, Russia and China build military transport aircraft as well.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 11:17
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,182
Received 18 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.
???
Which would be?
henra is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 11:36
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 379
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Seems a bit of a hysterical reaction to alleged comments by one anonymous 'service member' who may or may not exist. What aircraft type doesn't need repairs and modifications during its service life?
Video Mixdown is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 12:22
  #16 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 14,016
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes on 22 Posts





ORAC is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 16:19
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: *
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

How about Kawasaki C-2? Better than A-400?
wondering is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 16:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Surrey UK
Age: 73
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I recall back in 1972 working on not 2yrs old BAC1-11's and having to re-bore pintle U/C mounts to re-bush; also clean hydraulic tube pipe ends and coat with a barrier compound; happens and not insurmountable once a program is developed.
aeromech3 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 19:07
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,806
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
TBH I always thought the decision to stop building the C-17 was a mistake... they could still be selling them
Actually, the last 10 C-17's were built without buyers on the assumption that someone would want them (and yes, they were all sold, although the last one sold four years after it was built). Building billions of dollars worth of aircraft without known buyers is very, very risky.
At best, continued production of the C-17 would have been at a very low (i.e. uneconomical) rate. Besides, I doubt the EU would ever admit the A400M was a mistake and buy C-17s instead (although a good argument could made that they should have ordered C-17s instead of pouring $billions into the A400 development).
tdracer is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2022, 19:15
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.
The pointís been made by others above, but I canít let it go. Letís hear it SASless: the KC-X requirements were amended, leading to a reversal of the original outcome (with the Boeing KC-46 being selected over the Airbus A330 MRTT), becauseÖ?
Easy Street is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.