The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Procurement Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: EADS - So sad
Cranky Observer    9/17/2002 11:31:02 AM
While EADS is discussing unfairness in militayr procurement contracts, perhaps it could expain the purpose behind the A400M? What reason does it have to exist, since it does nothing the C-130 doesn't do while the 130 is available today?

Oh - wait - the A400M would be built by EADS, and European governments can be shamed into buying it. And that is different from the tanker situation how?

That said, I think the USAF would be wise to split the tanker buy 75 - Boeing to 25 - Airbus. First to keep a bit of pressure on Boeing, second to make some of these charges go away, and finally because a lot of the reserve captains are flying Airbus in their day jobs now and won't be current on Boeing.

Cranky
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
giblets    RE:EADS - So sad   9/4/2003 5:57:25 AM
Hmm, think you find the A-400m is actually a fair bit bigger than the c-130, ( payload of 36,000lbs vs 81,000lbs payload), range 4,000 vs 5,000. Question answered?
 
Quote    Reply

Interrested    RE:EADS - So sad   9/8/2003 8:35:41 AM
They Illiushin
 
Quote    Reply

Interrested    RE:EADS - So sad   9/8/2003 9:26:20 AM
If there were no political considerations they could have bought the IL76 which is somewhat comparable to the A400. ONLY better, and upgrades will further widen the gap.... Drop in new aviovics, new engines and you will have your airlift capability sooner, cheaper and more capable.. IL-76 - SPECIFICATION Crew 6 or 7 Aircraft dimensions Length 46.6 metres Height 14.42 metres Wing span 50.5 metres Weight Maximum takeoff weight 170 tons (190 tons) Load-carrying capacity 47 tons Cargo hold dimensions Length (less ramp) 20 metres Width 3.45 metres Height 3.4 metres Engines Power plants 4 x D-30KP turbofans Thrust provided by each engine 12,000 kgf Performance Range Flight range with 20-ton payload 6,100 (7,200) km Flight range with 47-ton payload 3,000 (4,200) km Speed Cruise speed at an altitude of 9 to12 km 760 to780 km/hr Fuel efficiency 231.5 (244)g/t km Runway Takeoff run on concrete runway 1,600 (1,700) metres Landing roll on concrete runway 780 to 1,000 metres
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:EADS - So sad   9/18/2003 6:33:38 AM
Don't thinkt he europeans will go forit,antoher point to make is that 'soviet' aircraft have a shorter frame life than their european counterparts, so inteh short term this will be a bonus, but in the longer term, costs will rise.
 
Quote    Reply

WDDavenport    A400's advantage over C-130: A400 carries LAV III/Stryker more comfortably   11/20/2003 7:44:06 PM
A400's advantage over C-130: A400 carries LAV III/Stryker more comfortably. The A440's advantage over the C-130 is that the A400 carries a LAV III/Stryker sized vehicle weighing 25-30 tons more comfortably than a C-130 does. The A400's cargo cabin is a bit wider and taller than the C-130's, and the A400 will lift a heavier payload than the C-130. The macro-level design of the A400 is of course copied from the C-130. I know from experience working at Lockheed that a transport just big enough to carry one medium weight combat vehicle has been on the agenda at both the DoD and European defense ministries for a good many years now. Should the US DoD buy any aircraft from Airbus or EADS no? No, the Europeans unfairly rejectedratt and Whitney's low bid to build the engines for the A400, so screw the Eurolanders.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:A400's advantage over C-130: A400 carries LAV III/Stryker more comfortably   11/20/2003 8:24:29 PM
I think you'll find the engines will ultimately be an air force decision whatever EADS say. Unlikely to feature foreign engines on a new aircraft day one; hey , we wouldn't! The Brits already use Allison which is owned by...Rolls Royce. Small world.
 
Quote    Reply

WDDavenport    That preceding post makes no sense.   11/22/2003 9:11:29 PM
[ RE:A400's advantage over C-130: A400 carries LAV III/Stryker more comfortably 11/20/2003 8:24:29 PM I think you'll find the engines will ultimately be an air force decision whatever EADS say. Unlikely to feature foreign engines on a new aircraft day one; hey , we wouldn't! The Brits already use Allison which is owned by...Rolls Royce. Small world. ] That post makes no sense. The manufacturor for the A400's engine has already been decided. Pratt and Whitney's Ontario unit was the lowe bidder, but P & W did not get the bid. The engine is a new design and is larger than the RR engines the C-130 uses. If your European air force prefers to stick with domestic manufacturors with which it is comfortable, I trust you won't complain when the US DoD does the same.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:That preceding post makes no sense.   11/23/2003 4:25:56 PM
Europeans do place orders with their own companies as you would expect. US forces are mandated by federal laws that equipment procured MUST be US unless there is no alternative US supplier and even then, non US equipment is often required to be manufactured in the US (e.g. Harrier/AV-8A).
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:That preceding post makes no sense.   11/24/2003 6:22:22 AM
It is clear that the USA expects Europe to pull its weight in terms of military might, constantly poining out how much more it spends on Military equipment, and how much more advanced it is. European armies are not in a position to purchased the large C-17 (well not all of them), and the C-130 is not large enough to support full deployment. AS for american parts, the propellor is made by Hamilton. In fact much of the content of the A-400m will be american (such as the weather radar), however, one of the major probelms is getting licensing for these products from the american government. As for the engine the PW180 was also a paper engine, and the Europena alternative is more powerfull, and efficient.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy