A400M

haven't got the money to clear it with U.K. chutes is not the same as ‘not effective’.
everyone else manages just fine dropping peoples out if it.
ah, so it can land on a rough field.....


but those A400M’s, seem a bit fragile for a big butch airlifter,

View attachment 552904

View attachment 552903
I landed on in Ethiopia in the mid 80’s with more damage than that!

Aircraft get damaged sometimes, we have to live with that unless I have utterly missed your point.

Regarding ‘clearing chutes’. It is far more than that. Airdrop from a jet (of which ours are fitted for but cannot AAR) is different to AD from a prop.

I could go on having conducted AD from all 3 of the aircraft types we occasionally discuss here but it would take up too much time and there are far more eloquent posters here.

Again, different aircraft for different things is sometimes the order of the day.

ETA- Landed on as a passenger. I am not/was not a pilot.
 
Last edited:
Then why do you include a dig at the C-17 in your posts (such as above) when it doesn't add to the discussion?
Ok,

Fair and polite question you asked me which I should therefore answer.

It was a bit of a dig at @PhotEx which, considering this is a serious thread, was probably not needed.

However, we have never crossed swords and I do admire his doggedness if not his knowledge.

No harm done and I continue to enjoy this thread without wishing to argue or antagonise too much!
 

Cromarty

War Hero
Ok,

Fair and polite question you asked me which I should therefore answer.

It was a bit of a dig at @PhotEx which, considering this is a serious thread, was probably not needed.

However, we have never crossed swords and I do admire his doggedness if not his knowledge.

No harm done and I continue to enjoy this thread without wishing to argue or antagonise too much!

Fair enough.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
If RAF had been allowed A330 MRTT, it would have been a different story. We would also have access to a boom for all our new US types. Hey ho! Voyager gets most of it done.

C17 was what the RAF wanted for strat AT. Govt said A400M, which was late so we got C17 on lease, which we overflew due to need, so bought them outright. Then A400M arrived.

A400M currently not cleared to move lots of types of stuff (mostly types of DAC) that therefore has to go in C17. Without C17 that stuff would have to go by surface or piecemeal by C130, which has other tasks to do.

I have not been the biggest A400M fan, but it is a decent trash hauler and the RAF is making the best of it. I would say that we would have been better off with C17/C130 but that was never going to happen. A400M/C130 would not work at present due to the A400M's current limitations so a 3-type fleet is the best compromise.

It remains to be seen what happens when the A400M is doing all the stuff the RAF needs it to do, because the C17s have been run ragged. I would not be surprised to see a couple of ex-USAF C17s come out of the boneyard with roundels on (though they are slightly different inside) or for some of the spare A400Ms arrive at BZN. Either way, it's a big grey threesome for some while yet.


A330 MRTT would have made the A400M look even more embarrassing -45 tonnes of cargo at a lower operating cost.!

a330-mrtt-12-upper-deck.jpg

Upstairs


a330-mrtt-04-lower-deck-740x555.jpg


Downstairs
 
It certainly is, as AIRBUS have found out - especially when you fit 4 humongous props close to the hull and generates huge unexpected vortex's.
Now on that point you are right.

The vortex issues did, to my best knowledge, cause a lot of major problems for double door para but I think they are beyond that now.

Possibly more updated details further up thread?
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Now on that point you are right.

The vortex issues did, to my best knowledge, cause a lot of major problems for double door para but I think they are beyond that now.

Possibly more updated details further up thread?


It also caused hull damage with the prototypes, necessitating it being beefed up - and beefing up added weight, which cut payload promised.


A400M - An object lesson in how not to design an airlifter
 
A lot of this thread concerns the different capabilities of the three transport aircraft.

However, the thread seems to be pre-occupied with an "accepted" argument that we cannot afford to keep/operate all three.

Can anyone quantify the savings from only operating two transport aircraft, as opposed to the three we currently have?

+ + + + + + + + + + +

I would be interested to compare those (assumed) savings, in the context of the total defence budget . . .

“Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary has sought assurances from the Chancellor that the current £41.5 billion budget will not be affected due to COVID-19 pressures but Rishi Sunak has made no promises”.

The effect of COVID-19 on national defence budgets - Wilson James

+ + + + + + + + + + +

I would also be interested to compare those (assumed) savings, and the total defence budget of £41.5 billion, in the context of the “one off” COVID expenditure which seems to be being met by access to a “money tree” no-one was aware of . . .

“The deficit is now expected to be £394bn in 2020/21, which is £339bn higher than had been anticipated before public health restrictions were first imposed back in March. As the figure shows, this increase can be broken down into several factors”.

StackPath
 
A330 MRTT would have made the A400M look even more embarrassing -45 tonnes of cargo at a lower operating cost.!

View attachment 552949
Upstairs


View attachment 552951

Downstairs

And a 747 cargo can shift more than a C17 at a lower operating cost - So beyond the obvious to everyone Military airlifters cost more to run than civil airliners factioid - I fail to see what your point is .

Incidentally whilst it is somewhat larger than the A400M - I remain more than a lot sceptical that an A330 could transport a wheeled AFV such as the VAB or Jaguar. Its almost as if payload weight isnt the full story- in fact id go so far as to suggest that the most embarrassing thing about the A330MRTT - A400M comparison is that you think their is a direct comparison.
 

Cromarty

War Hero
A lot of this thread concerns the different capabilities of the three transport aircraft.

However, the thread seems to be pre-occupied with an "accepted" argument that we cannot afford to keep/operate all three.

Can anyone quantify the savings from only operating two transport aircraft, as opposed to the three we currently have?

+ + + + + + + + + + +

I would be interested to compare those (assumed) savings, in the context of the total defence budget . . .

“Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary has sought assurances from the Chancellor that the current £41.5 billion budget will not be affected due to COVID-19 pressures but Rishi Sunak has made no promises”.

The effect of COVID-19 on national defence budgets - Wilson James

+ + + + + + + + + + +

I would also be interested to compare those (assumed) savings, and the total defence budget of £41.5 billion, in the context of the “one off” COVID expenditure which seems to be being met by access to a “money tree” no-one was aware of . . .

“The deficit is now expected to be £394bn in 2020/21, which is £339bn higher than had been anticipated before public health restrictions were first imposed back in March. As the figure shows, this increase can be broken down into several factors”.

StackPath

It is the mantra of many countries governments that their militaries reduce whatever platforms to simplify and reduce costs through logistics, spares and training. How much you spend on using platforms less suited (vehicles/aircraft/artillery) is never mentioned.
 
And a 747 cargo can shift more than a C17 at a lower operating cost - So beyond the obvious to everyone Military airlifters cost more to run than civil airliners factioid - I fail to see what your point is .

Incidentally whilst it is somewhat larger than the A400M - I remain more than a lot sceptical that an A330 could transport a wheeled AFV such as the VAB or Jaguar. Its almost as if payload weight isnt the full story- in fact id go so far as to suggest that the most embarrassing thing about the A330MRTT - A400M comparison is that you think their is a direct comparison.

The A-380 can theoretically carry more than a 747 but in practice it’s structure leave a lot of useless space which I think means in practice it actually can’t, so that’s probably a true statement, especially as none of the commercial converts have a large rear door to drive stuff into!
 
The A-380 can theoretically carry more than a 747 but in practice it’s structure leave a lot of useless space which I think means in practice it actually can’t, so that’s probably a true statement, especially as none of the commercial converts have a large rear door to drive stuff into!
Im not sure I agree with your conclusion A380 has a lot of dead space compared to the 747

As far as Pax aircraft goes it is definetly the other way around - huge amount of empty space on a 74 above the passenger OH bins

Cargo wise I would say depends - Youve 2 full decks on the 380 so lots of floor space on the other hand your max height on the main deck will be about 8/9ft floor to ceiling/ lower side of beams ( Been 13yrs so allow a foot or so for age and memory

Havent been on a 74 Combi since Pontius was a pilot and I dont recall how the cargo door is sized but in theory that dead space above pax bins would now instead lend itself to taller cargo - if the door way is tall enough - In practice i suspect its mostly dead space still, owing to the practicalities of loading and manhandling stuff.

I would expect most of the time the 2 full decks to lend itself far better for the likes of DHL who only cancelled as the delays were taking its arrival beyond fleet replacement requirements.

Edited to remove stutter
 
Im not sure where you conclude A380 has a lot of dead space compared to the 747

As far as Pax aircraft goes it is definetly the other way around - huge amount of empty space on a 74 above the passenger OH bins

Cargo wise I would say depends - Youve 2 full decks on the 380 so lots of floor space on the other hand your max height on the main deck will be about 8/9ft floor to ceiling/ lower side of beams ( Been 13yrs so allow a foot or so for age and memory

Havent been on a 74 Combi since Pontius was a pilot and I dont recall how the cargo door is sized but in theory that dead space above pax bins would now instead lend itself to taller cargo - if the door way is tall enough enough - In practice i suspect its mostly dead space still owing to the practicalities of loading and manhandling stuff.

I would expect most of the time the 2 full decks to lend itself far better for the likes of DHL who only cancelled as the delays were taking its arrival beyond fleet replacement requirements

It hits its maximum load weight before you can fill it.

 
It hits its maximum load weight before you can fill it.


There was a freighter planned and ordered - so both Airbus and DHL at least disagreed with the authors conclusions, call me old fashioned but if DHL thought it would make a good freighter for them im inclined to believe them -

See my previous it perhaps depends on what cargo, range , frequency etc
in comparison both 74 and 380 are superiour in range payload and possibly running costs to the A400 - Id pay good money however to see either land on a rough strip and digorge a light armoured vehicle then depart.

It does seem the author reached his conclusion and selected the evidence that fit.
 
There was a freighter planned and ordered - so both Airbus and DHL at least disagreed with the authors conclusions, call me old fashioned but if DHL thought it would make a good freighter for them im inclined to believe them -

See my previous it perhaps depends on what cargo, range , frequency etc
in comparison both 74 and 380 are superiour in range payload and possibly running costs to the A400 - Id pay good money however to see either land on a rough strip and digorge a light armoured vehicle then depart.

It does seem the author reached his conclusion and selected the evidence that fit.

Its not the only link mate, I also have heard that it doesnt fit air freight pallets very well hence the wasted space but I cannot be arsed looking.

I dont really care except that in the spirit of this thread, you cannot compare Military Transports to Civil ones which was the point of my post and I believe yours.
 
Its not the only link mate, I also have heard that it doesnt fit air freight pallets very well hence the wasted space but I cannot be arsed looking.

Im not arguing it would have been perfect by any means - but an article that concludes theres no A380F because its to big - falls at the 1st hurdle when the A380F was ordered by at least 1 large customer. So in effect there would (or rather should have been) an A380F in service.

It doesnt exist because of fed up of delays** the customer cancelled -

For the record i dont doubt for bulky stuff the 748F would have been a better fit for most customers


**Ignoring Franco / German cooperation (ha) the real delay was because they tried to be too clever and deliver customer specific aircraft - rather than a basic model - you then modify the fit as you require (everything and else does this) It was a sales gimmick to steal Boeings thunder .


Consequently there were clashes in internal fit and cable runs since mechs and electrical went there own way and for example customers Cs aircraft used Bs mech fit as a basis but used As wiring harnesses - as a result the fitters found water pipes where they were trying to fit data cables etc.



I dont really care except that in the spirit of this thread, you cannot compare Military Transports to Civil ones which was the point of my post and I believe yours.
Were in agreement there, its unfortunate that someone very clearly doesnt realise that tail ramps and rough field landing capabilities, and high floor loading capabilities comes at a significant price in cost - performance - maintenance and thus operating costs, otherwise they would never have made a direct comparison between the 2.
 
Well I’m trying not bag @PhotEx as in a previous incarnation he started the fantastic gingers you would do thread!

Besides, controversy or stupidity generates some great counter posts and every day is a learning day.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Its not the only link mate, I also have heard that it doesnt fit air freight pallets very well hence the wasted space but I cannot be arsed looking.

I dont really care except that in the spirit of this thread, you cannot compare Military Transports to Civil ones which was the point of my post and I believe yours.

but that’s exactly what the A400M has found itself doing, its become the RAF’s Fedex box shifter, a job a Voyager could have done better if we’d had the sense to fit the cargo door and updated floor - See the old Tristars.
A400M is a very expensive way to haul cardboard boxes. at least with MRTT’s, (aka A330 freighters), they could have been leased out to FedEx/DHL delivering Amazon packages to make a few Bob.
 
but that’s exactly what the A400M has found itself doing, its become the RAF’s Fedex box shifter, a job a Voyager could have done better if we’d had the sense to fit the cargo door and updated floor - See the old Tristars.
A400M is a very expensive way to haul cardboard boxes. at least with MRTT’s, (aka A330 freighters), they could have been leased out to FedEx/DHL delivering Amazon packages to make a few Bob.
Shut up you thick cnut :)
 

Latest Threads

Top