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

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.

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

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?

Maybe he thought it was the KC-46 thread? :ok:

Excellent points sasless.

Embraer C-390 ?

I think someone needs to understand the difference between corrosion and erosion.

"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) — 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.

At a casual glance the C-390 appears much smaller than it actually is, the huge cockpit windows are very deceptive.

Japan, Russia and China build military transport aircraft as well.

???
Which would be?

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?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d5aaff89d3.png


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7582d98c0.jpeg

How about Kawasaki C-2? Better than A-400?

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.

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).

The point’s been made by others above, but I can’t let it go. Let’s 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), because…?