Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 167

Thread: A400M vs An-70

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    84

    A400M vs An-70

    Today came news that russians decided to pick up An-70 project which is reported to require 300 mln $.

    Now A400M equiped with less advanced turboprop engines and lesser take off weight have 7000km range with 20t, while An-70 reported to make 6600km with 20t. Why is that? Ain't Antonov's state of the art propfans supposed to be more fuel efficient?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
    Today came news that russians decided to pick up An-70 project which is reported to require 300 mln $.

    Now A400M equiped with less advanced turboprop engines and lesser take off weight have 7000km range with 20t, while An-70 reported to make 6600km with 20t. Why is that? Ain't Antonov's state of the art propfans supposed to be more fuel efficient?
    Why do you think the An-70s engines are more advanced? Because of the props?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currently in Hampshire UK
    Posts
    780
    Antonov make some pretty rocking transporters its gotte be said, maybe its the amount of fuel it carries dunno, less draggy perhaps?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
    Today came news that russians decided to pick up An-70 project which is reported to require 300 mln $.

    Now A400M equiped with less advanced turboprop engines and lesser take off weight have 7000km range with 20t, while An-70 reported to make 6600km with 20t. Why is that? Ain't Antonov's state of the art propfans supposed to be more fuel efficient?
    The fundamental difference between these technologies, including turbofans, is bypass ratio, putting aside implementation details for the moment. This has nothing to do with how "advanced" they might be (probably more or less equally advanced in this case). While propfans are generally more fuel-efficient than turbofans, they sacrifice top speed in the process, and the same comparison could generally be made between turboprops and propfans (i.e. turboprops are more efficient but slower than propfans). It's quite possible, even likely, that the selection was based partly on maximum speed, which is 420 knots for the An-70 versus 300 knots for the A400M.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Dork Matter View Post
    The fundamental difference between these technologies, including turbofans, is bypass ratio, putting aside implementation details for the moment. This has nothing to do with how "advanced" they might be (probably more or less equally advanced in this case). While propfans are generally more fuel-efficient than turbofans, they sacrifice top speed in the process, and the same comparison could generally be made between turboprops and propfans (i.e. turboprops are more efficient but slower than propfans). It's quite possible, even likely, that the selection was based partly on maximum speed, which is 420 knots for the An-70 versus 300 knots for the A400M.
    http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

    You mistook CAS with TAS.
    Last edited by Sens; 15th February 2008 at 21:02.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Oops! You're absolutely right. Looking up some numbers real quick--trying to be more careful this time --it seems that there is not much difference in their published cruising speeds (if anything, the A400M is slightly faster). And although their engines are of different types, the two implementations seem to end up being quite equivalent in many respects, despite the theoretical tradeoffs.

    But wait...there's more!

    Quote Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
    Now A400M equiped with less advanced turboprop engines and lesser take off weight have 7000km range with 20t, while An-70 reported to make 6600km with 20t.
    Airbus' A400M product page lists its range while carrying a 20-t payload as 3450 nm, which is actually 6389 km rather than 7000 km--slightly shorter than the An-70's 6600 km range with the same payload weight. The main difference between these aircraft appears to be that the An-70 is a somewhat larger/heavier aircraft--maximum payload of 47 t versus 37 t for the A400M--with a slightly longer range. The An-70 apparently doesn't gain any speed from using propfans, nor does it appear to lose or gain much efficiency--both of their engines are optimized or "tuned" to similar parameters, whatever you want to call them.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Eastern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,084

    A400 vs An-70??

    why hasn't anyone else pointed out the easiest - most simple - difference????

    the A400 has YET TO FLY!!!

    end of comparison!
    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is a war room!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by contrailjj View Post
    why hasn't anyone else pointed out the easiest - most simple - difference????

    the A400 has YET TO FLY!!!

    end of comparison!
    Well, that's no fun. Besides, the performance figures we get from websites will still probably be just as accurate...seriously....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Do the numbers mention flight profile and reserves?

    Interesting numbers would be max tactical radius lo-lo-lo @ X payload, (i) without refuelling at the stop and taking cargo back, (ii) LAPES cargo delivery and flying back empty. The difference in weights, while having more or less identical performance up to 30t (the useful max of the A400M) might be caused by structural specs, like max floor pressure. And I still think that the A400M is excessively heavy empty.
    Last edited by Distiller; 16th February 2008 at 08:39.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by contrailjj View Post
    why hasn't anyone else pointed out the easiest - most simple - difference????

    the A400 has YET TO FLY!!!

    end of comparison!
    And the deeper sense of that claim. In computer-times the test-flights are just in need to verify that data, to find out differences not covered by software and to iron out unexspected problems. The general capabilities are not affected by that really.
    The airlines did place orders for the A-380 and B-787 before first flight and by that some performances are contracted already. The AN-70 had its first flight, but a fatal crash too. The test-program was never completed and not all parameters flown, so still a limited prototyp only.
    You are right about that, that none of both had flown all parameters and performances claimed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by contrailjj View Post
    why hasn't anyone else pointed out the easiest - most simple - difference????

    the A400 has YET TO FLY!!!

    end of comparison!

    There´s one other huge diference, the A400 has 192 firm order´s, the AN-70 has... none...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,973
    YC-14 for the win.
    Last edited by sferrin; 19th January 2009 at 15:21.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by sferrin View Post
    YC-14 for the win.
    Why not. The Hercules is still in need of a replacement.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,433
    True, the A400M hasn't flown, and the AN-70 has, but apparently doesn't like too!!
    Give a man a fish and eat for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he'll die praying for a fish!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by contrailjj View Post
    why hasn't anyone else pointed out the easiest - most simple - difference????

    the A400 has YET TO FLY!!!

    end of comparison!
    The An-70 as we know it was a prototype and did not have much in common with the serial aircraft. That is standard practice for military types, especially in Russia. The A400M is built under a completely different system and comes along with complete production infrastructure. Although some technical problems might occur, the basic performance figures are not in danger (probably a bit more OEW). The A400M has quite a lot of reserves in airframe and engine.

    The A400M is the result of a compromise between 8 different air forces, so that its size and performance is exactly what a normal air force needs. No C-17 overkill.

    Larger airframes sacrifice average mission cost effectiveness against the ability to fulfill some particular missions. The 47t max payload sounds like a "light" MBT. The A400M was from the outset not designed to bring in real tanks, and it is generally regarded as a wise decision as such a requirements increases size and weight, but still is not needed 99.99% of the time. How many M1 tanks were ferried to Iraq by C-17 in 2002/03 or by C-5 in 1990/91? The time when MBTs were needed to win the battlefield are over, while they are of course useful (no Navy commander minds to have a battleship, either).

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Well, the FLA/A400M was designed from the outset for Puma. At least from the German side. Which it can't do any more, since Puma grew the same way FCS is growing right now.
    An-70 could fly a Puma, or even a Boxer (talking about FRES). So it looks like future EU-Battlegroup armored airmobile units have a real problem (and that thing about add-on armor is just BS in my mind, given aircraft-on-ground restrictions in an expeditionary environment, which results in 50%+ dragged-out airlift operations).

    Talking about FCS: In case no "Future Tactical Airlifter" (like that NGCO stealth-ESTOL-BWB) is built in the U.S. to fly the FCS around (which originally should have fitted into a C-130J) there might be a slim chance for A400M in the U.S., as the FCS' 30 metric tons fit just nicely within the capabilities of the A400M.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by sferrin View Post
    YC-14 for the win.
    Actually, when I see the concepts of 20t payload tilt rotor aircraft, when the 6t payload variant already cost 20 bln USD to develop and is by all means a nightmare program, I think that alternatives should be considered. A STOVL optimized aircraft will have obvious disadvantages compared to a helicopter, you always need 500m airstrip, but you gain a lot.
    The question is: how often is it an essential necessity to bring in 15-20t payload vertically after a 300 mile ride at speeds above 150kts TAS. 12t over 200 miles at 140kts TAS is what a Chinook can do today. If it carries the grass mower to the right location, you can use the 20t over 500nm* A400M afterwards.


    ----------
    *: that is: 500nm with 20t payload into an improvised airstrip, out with 15t and another 500nm, no refuel at improvised airstrip. You'll hardly find any aircraft with comparable performance.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Well, the FLA/A400M was designed from the outset for Puma. At least from the German side. Which it can't do any more, since Puma grew the same way FCS is growing right now.
    An-70 could fly a Puma, or even a Boxer (talking about FRES). So it looks like future EU-Battlegroup armored airmobile units have a real problem (and that thing about add-on armor is just BS in my mind, given aircraft-on-ground restrictions in an expeditionary environment, which results in 50%+ dragged-out airlift operations).

    Talking about FCS: In case no "Future Tactical Airlifter" (like that NGCO stealth-ESTOL-BWB) is built in the U.S. to fly the FCS around (which originally should have fitted into a C-130J) there might be a slim chance for A400M in the U.S., as the FCS' 30 metric tons fit just nicely within the capabilities of the A400M.
    Which actually would call for a vehicle optimized for the aircraft. 25-30 tons is enough for a light tank. The Europeans, and the Germans in particular, have a never-ending love affair with heavy armor. The current Leopard 2A6 even exceeds the tactical payload of a C-17.

    Please explain: ESTOL, NGCO, FCS, FRES.
    Nice you know so many abbreviations, but do you post to communicate or to show off?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Well, the FLA/A400M was designed from the outset for Puma. At least from the German side. Which it can't do any more, since Puma grew the same way FCS is growing right now.....
    A400M is still capable of carrying a Puma, just not in heavy armour configuration. The extra armour modules have to be transported separately.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Non do exspect seriously that Puma will leave the ramp of a A400M going into battle the machine-gun blazing, when Taliban are aiming the A400M f.e.
    For safety reasons such Puma has to be fuelled-up, get ammunition a.s.o. to become combat ready in some time related to urgency. All modern ACVs are built in a modular way, by following the concept "for ever young". What configuration is choosen is related to the local threat. From mines, explosives or RPG f.e. (See page 4, the pics are selfexplaining)
    http://www.freundeskreis-panzergrena...sut_200410.pdf

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Well, the FLA/A400M was designed from the outset for Puma. At least from the German side. Which it can't do any more, since Puma grew the same way FCS is growing right now.
    An-70 could fly a Puma, or even a Boxer (talking about FRES). So it looks like future EU-Battlegroup armored airmobile units have a real problem (and that thing about add-on armor is just BS in my mind, given aircraft-on-ground restrictions in an expeditionary environment, which results in 50%+ dragged-out airlift operations).

    Talking about FCS: In case no "Future Tactical Airlifter" (like that NGCO stealth-ESTOL-BWB) is built in the U.S. to fly the FCS around (which originally should have fitted into a C-130J) there might be a slim chance for A400M in the U.S., as the FCS' 30 metric tons fit just nicely within the capabilities of the A400M.

    The A400M can lift both the Puma and the Boxer...
    And the chances of a "Future Tactical Airlifter" for the USAF being based on a "BWB" design by Lock Mart or a Tilt Rotor by Bell/Boeing are a big fat "ZERO".
    Unless the USAF doubles it´s Budget and forget those 1700´s F35A.
    Last edited by Sintra; 18th February 2008 at 14:54.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    And the chances of a "Future Tactical Airlifter" for the USAF being based on a "BWB" design by Lock Mart or a Tilt Rotor by Bell/Boeing are a big fat "ZERO".
    I would even see a value smaller than ZERO.
    I think the USAF will return to affordability focus rather than capability focus. The Osprey already is a huge failure.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Schorsch View Post
    Which actually would call for a vehicle optimized for the aircraft. 25-30 tons is enough for a light tank. The Europeans, and the Germans in particular, have a never-ending love affair with heavy armor. The current Leopard 2A6 even exceeds the tactical payload of a C-17.

    Please explain: ESTOL, NGCO, FCS, FRES.
    Nice you know so many abbreviations, but do you post to communicate or to show off?
    Sorry, war keine Absicht!

    ESTOL - Extreme Short Take Off & Landing
    NGCO - Northrop Grumman Corp (akin to my old LMCO company - Lockheed Martin Corp)
    FCS - Future Combat System
    FRES - Future Rapid Effects System

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    @ delivering combat vehicles in bits and peaces:

    "We" did the numbers (again ) for the EU mission to Chad.
    The critical factor is aircraft on ground at any given time. Think 1 airlift wing for 1 BCT to fly in, think 1 airlift squadron to support that outfit, and now try to keep the line flowing into a sub-optimal airstrip. You don't have to roll off the ramp guns blazin'. Flying in partially assembled vehicles is ABSOLUTELY DEADLY for your logistics. So much for the use of add-on armor for overweight Pumas and Boxers. French VBCI work, btw (but we'll all be dead before European forces are standardizing).


    I don't see a very big chance for a decent C-130 successor to be developed.
    Maybemaybe a chance for the A400M. Larger than ZERO?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Sorry, war keine Absicht!
    Danke!

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    @ delivering combat vehicles in bits and peaces:

    "We" did the numbers (again ) for the EU mission to Chad.
    The critical factor is aircraft on ground at any given time. Think 1 airlift wing for 1 BCT to fly in, think 1 airlift squadron to support that outfit, and now try to keep the line flowing into a sub-optimal airstrip. You don't have to roll off the ramp guns blazin'. Flying in partially assembled vehicles is ABSOLUTELY DEADLY for your logistics. So much for the use of add-on armor for overweight Pumas and Boxers. French VBCI work, btw (but we'll all be dead before European forces are standardizing).
    Is something like an fully armoured infantry fighting vehicle not a complete overkill for such a conflict? Of course, nice to have. But with armed light tanks like Fuchs you rule the situation.
    There is always the chance to get other airlift assets and use the tactical transporter for the tactical transport, to prevent pointless missions like flying coke cans from US to Iraq in a C-17.

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller
    I don't see a very big chance for a decent C-130 successor to be developed.
    Maybemaybe a chance for the A400M. Larger than ZERO?
    How do you define "decent"? The A400M can do nearly everything twice as good. The C-130J is not useful for strategical logistical operations, it lacks payload-range, speed and volume. Most buyers of the A400M will have a strategical transport the first time, and it still can do all missions of the C-130J. Isn't that "decent"? The A400M can actually haul an empty C-160 from Germany to Chad, provided the Transall is packed in boxes.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    1,372

    Talking

    The A400 is such a great battle proven all-round airlifter! It is just CRIMINAL that the US EVER got into the second (or third?) rate C-130 business in the first place!!!!! Whoever was in charge of procurment of the C-130 should be executed!!!! Why didnt the US just get A400s from the get go?!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by hawkdriver05 View Post
    The A400 is such a great battle proven all-round airlifter! It is just CRIMINAL that the US EVER got into the second (or third?) rate C-130 business in the first place!!!!! Whoever was in charge of procurment of the C-130 should be executed!!!! Why didnt the US just get A400s from the get go?!
    I wouldn't discount the probability that in 2015ish an aircraft lifts off from Marietta or elsewhere that strongly resembles an A400M, with American engines, systems and some customizing. Whatever the USAF procures as C-130 successor, it will either be a very expensive optimized niche aircraft (tiltrotor, ESTOL, stealth) or it will look basically the same as the A400M. When the problem is broadly similar (tactical/strategic airlift, short field, medium payload), the solutions will be, too.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,053
    Agreed, someone in the USA must at least be thinking about a serious replacement for the C-130 even if they haven't yet got a budget to spend.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    235
    I think the C-130 is just like the Tu-95, B-52, and A-10.

    Their future replacements will be the C-130, Tu-95, B-52 and A-10. :diablo:


    Matt

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Schorsch View Post
    I wouldn't discount the probability that in 2015ish an aircraft lifts off from Marietta or elsewhere that strongly resembles an A400M, with American engines, systems and some customizing. Whatever the USAF procures as C-130 successor, it will either be a very expensive optimized niche aircraft (tiltrotor, ESTOL, stealth) or it will look basically the same as the A400M. When the problem is broadly similar (tactical/strategic airlift, short field, medium payload), the solutions will be, too.
    It probably will resemble the A400 (which kinda resembles the C-130) but it will be an all new A/C......have better performance than the A400..... be cheaper than the A400....and then this whole stupid argument can continue.......until the end of time!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES