The Aborted.



Cos it might be.

Only by spotters and nerds :8. The same people who think that the Buccaneer was known as the 'Brick' by its crews and that the RAF flew something termed the 'Phantom F Mk 3'*....:rolleyes:


It was actually the F-4J(UK) and was flown exclusively by 74(F) Sqn.

How about 'Artists Impression' or 'Future Large Aircraft', but my particular favourite......

The Airbus Industries ' tard.

Careful bEagle.... That sounds like

The C-17 is nicknamed the "Buddha" because it is fat, doesn't move and everyone worships it. So, maybe, the Mini-Buddha?

GF
Couldn't be FRED, already taken by the original FRED, but it is one.

I'm suprised that Airbus called it A400M in the first place and not the 'EuroFreighter'.

Sometimes the best solutions are the simple and too obvious to notice.. Nice.

I believe the Airbus A300B4 is referred to as Eurofreighters hence why it has not been used.

Wasn't Stella Artois a famous Belgian ? :ok:

'Ere Nutloose - I used to live in Fortess Road - wot a liberty!

I like the Airbus Amberley - sounds alright - seriously. The Australians would like it too.

My suggestion is Cash Cow

What about the Insh'Allah??Its about the only way its going to get airborne!!

I can see it now, a blue plaque mounted on the wall outside yer old ex abode....

'Ere lived Royalistflyer, we named a plane after the street he once lived in.

:E

Hmmmm... I like the idea of a blue plaque recording me ....

A440M Name
 

Please tell me the RAAF are not in the least interested in the A400M. After fifty two years of service from the "Lockheed Legends", in four different models, why on earth would the RAAF look at the Airbus product. Massively expensive and, to date, totally unproven.

Expensive and unproven? It's not stopped the RAAF before.

The F-111 turned out alright :ok:

Expensive and unproven
 

Certainly, the F111 did eventually turn out to be a great aircraft, albiet very much later than anticipated. The "Wing carry-through box" problems took a long time to overcome before the RAAF took delivery. My point is that the C130, from the original "A" model through the "E" and "H" to the current "J" model have all served the RAAF extremely well in all sorts of roles and environments. With the C17 already in service, and the C130 still in production and available if required, what is the point in the RAAF leaving a proven performer for one yet to be proven?

Lockheed Legends?
 

Sure, do you wanna use them another 40 years?

The thing is, when you want something new, it's usually unproven at first - until it's proven. Of course Oz can wait another 20 years or so and then take a number of Grizzlys (that appears to be the name Airbus engineers chose for it). Upon reflection, I'd call it the Westminster, though... :8

Obese Albert

I remember the time when the Australians would have happily walked away from the C-130J but the UK was so desperate we talked the Australians into staying with the project.
The problem common to both the A400M and the C-130J is the concept of building and certifying them as civil transports before turning them into military aircraft; it don't work, the manufacturers are clueless on how to do it and it certainly aint cheap.

BTW I like the sound of Atlas C Mk 1