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?
Antonov make some pretty rocking transporters its gotte be said, maybe its the amount of fuel it carries dunno, less draggy perhaps?
You mistook CAS with TAS.
Last edited by Sens; 15th February 2008 at 21:02.
But wait...there's more!
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!
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.
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.
YC-14 for the win.
Last edited by sferrin; 19th January 2009 at 15:21.
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!
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).
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 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.
Please explain: ESTOL, NGCO, FCS, FRES.
Nice you know so many abbreviations, but do you post to communicate or to show off?
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)
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.
@ 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?
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.
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.Originally Posted by Distiller
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?!
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.
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:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)