More grizzles over A400 Grizzly

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
it does have a ground attack capability though - according to tinman.

it is fcuking shambles as usual, why they dont get one company to come up with a working design and then farm the subcontracts out instead of this abortion is beyond me. it was supposed to be better and cheaper than the herc to escape US reliance but they would have been better just buying the license to built hercs.

and we allready know that it lacks the legs and speed of the c17 so why call the thing 'atlas' and its so expensive we will be leasing c130s every time they might have to go somewhere with aggressive organic ground fire or sending c17s anyway.

how they can justify this and yet cancel nimrod which was at least ready is beyond me.
 
#4
it does have a ground attack capability though - according to tinman.
Does showering the ground beneath you with engine parts and propeller blades really count as ground attack?

Ok, yes it does.
 
#6
And hot boiling oils we've been doing that for a thousand years on and off!
We should still do that if you ask me. There's no defence against it, apart from one of those tiny comedy umbrellas.
 
#7
Not to detract from the entirely fair points about the A400M and its woes, but the Torygraph strikes again:

Airbus was forced to abandon the public debut of the A400M
Says the paper.

Berlin, ILA 2010: Scotch mist, presumably?

[video=youtube;dgALWWBg3qs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgALWWBg3qs[/video]
 
#8
how they can justify this and yet cancel nimrod which was at least ready is beyond me.
Were they?

SoF, I am shocked... why suggest buying more C-17s when they are very large beasts... really we need some new hercy birds.
 
T

Tinman74

Guest
#10
it does have a ground attack capability though - according to tinman.

it is fcuking shambles as usual, why they dont get one company to come up with a working design and then farm the subcontracts out instead of this abortion is beyond me. it was supposed to be better and cheaper than the herc to escape US reliance but they would have been better just buying the license to built hercs.

and we allready know that it lacks the legs and speed of the c17 so why call the thing 'atlas' and its so expensive we will be leasing c130s every time they might have to go somewhere with aggressive organic ground fire or sending c17s anyway.

how they can justify this and yet cancel nimrod which was at least ready is beyond me.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-89696.html
 
#11
A load of nice airliners designed for AAR (including themselves), and transport for long haul,

c-17s for strat lift

C-130s for tac lift

and a load of chinooks, ospreys and black hawks... job jobbed.
 
#14
And of course I didn't take this photo at RIAT (RAF Fairford) in July 2010 either...
Well, who did take it then?
 
#15
A load of nice airliners designed for AAR (including themselves), and transport for long haul that haven't been compromised by fitting out for chav-charter flying instead of actual military stuff

c-17s for strat lift

C-130s for tac lift

and a load of chinooks, ospreys and black hawks... job jobbed.
Just thought I'd add a quick sub-clause to that for you!
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Were they?

SoF, I am shocked... why suggest buying more C-17s when they are very large beasts... really we need some new hercy birds.
apparently so and according to the expert asked to look at them, I put a link up in one of the harrier threads
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
And of course I didn't take this photo at RIAT (RAF Fairford) in July 2010 either...
it flew there, flew about a bit, dropped loads of bits then flew back - no different to the vulcan really.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top