Slartibartfast Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8407825.stm Took to the Air... Quote
macelena Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Long awaited. This will boost the air mobility of many allied air forces Quote
Slartibartfast Posted December 11, 2009 Author Posted December 11, 2009 Now all they need to do is put it on a diet like the STOVL F-35 Quote
+FastCargo Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Military aircraft programs are getting ridiculous in terms of time from initial concept to operational status. Fighter type aircraft are bad enough (yes, I'm looking at you F-22)...but even straight forward concepts like a transport are taking way too long. With the A400M, you could have literally have seen the concept designs, then started a 20 year career, retired, and STILL not seen the first flight... This is not a criticism of the aircraft, just of the process. FC Quote
Slartibartfast Posted December 11, 2009 Author Posted December 11, 2009 Military aircraft programs are getting ridiculous in terms of time from initial concept to operational status. Fighter type aircraft are bad enough (yes, I'm looking at you F-22)...but even straight forward concepts like a transport are taking way too long. With the A400M, you could have literally have seen the concept designs, then started a 20 year career, retired, and STILL not seen the first flight... This is not a criticism of the aircraft, just of the process. FC Hell I did 10 years in the RAF and went to a BAe Presentation on the Eurofighter in 91 and I had left the RAF and there was still no sign there... Quote
macelena Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Military aircraft programs are getting ridiculous in terms of time from initial concept to operational status. Fighter type aircraft are bad enough (yes, I'm looking at you F-22)...but even straight forward concepts like a transport are taking way too long. With the A400M, you could have literally have seen the concept designs, then started a 20 year career, retired, and STILL not seen the first flight... This is not a criticism of the aircraft, just of the process. FC Hell I did 10 years in the RAF and went to a BAe Presentation on the Eurofighter in 91 and I had left the RAF and there was still no sign there... Well, if it is madness about US projects, look at european ones. First time EF2000 was thought of was 1978, and 31 years later it is not yet fully operational. Perhaps the aircraft has just mutated, and you can´t tell that this is the fighter wich was originally thought off. Military, economical, political changes raining over the planes make ideas be screwed up so you just start a new aircraft, not from zero, but just a different aircraft. Quote
+Gepard Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Its a french prestige project. Airbus never built a plane with prop engines. Airbus never built a aircraft that must be able to land on grass stripes. Airbus never built a military transport plane. And you ask why it came to the delays? The german Luftwaffe prefered the AN-70 till the french insisted and chancellor Schröder gave his okay to the A-400M. What a shame. If their wont be enough transport plane types available. C-17, C-130j from the USA or the AN-70,AN-124 from the Ukraine, the IL-76 from Russia. All planes available. All planes proofen to be good, but Europe must invent the tire a second time! What for a waste of money! Quote
Silverbolt Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Its a french prestige project. Airbus never built a plane with prop engines. Airbus never built a aircraft that must be able to land on grass stripes. Airbus never built a military transport plane. And you ask why it came to the delays? The german Luftwaffe prefered the AN-70 till the french insisted and chancellor Schröder gave his okay to the A-400M. What a shame. If their wont be enough transport plane types available. C-17, C-130j from the USA or the AN-70,AN-124 from the Ukraine, the IL-76 from Russia. All planes available. All planes proofen to be good, but Europe must invent the tire a second time! What for a waste of money! but and if you didn't get the step tire from your traditional supplier? you will have no wheels Quote
+JediMaster Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Don't forget the problems stemming from the purely political decision to go with an all-new Euro engine for the 400M after the Canadian engine actually won. Quote
Silverbolt Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Don't forget the problems stemming from the purely political decision to go with an all-new Euro engine for the 400M after the Canadian engine actually won. oh yes, at least it wasn't an European Engine x European Engine....it could make Airbus Crack , just Like happened with EF-2000 Quote
+SayethWhaaaa Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 It's only 2 years behind schedule and suffering from a myriad of issues, but the A-400M has finally made it's maiden flight... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8407825.stm Still a nice looking transport though... Quote
macelena Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 http://forum.combatace.com/topic/50774-a400m-finally/ Quote
+SayethWhaaaa Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 Oops, I missed that. Cheers Marcelena! Quote
+SayethWhaaaa Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 Couldn't help but notice that the South African flag was still on the fuselage... Quote
+JediMaster Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 And the 787 is due to make its maiden flight at 10am PST today... Quote
+DWCAce Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Wow, that is a BEAST! JM, thanks for the heads up on the 787. Quote
Rambler 1-1 Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 Ok, who let the C-130 and C-17 share a hangar? Quote
+DWCAce Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 Ok, who let the C-130 and C-17 share a hangar? My thoughts exactly! Quote
Lexx_Luthor Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 FC:: Military aircraft programs are getting ridiculous in terms of time from initial concept to operational status. Fighter type aircraft are bad enough (yes, I'm looking at you F-22)...but even straight forward concepts like a transport are taking way too long. With the A400M, you could have literally have seen the concept designs, then started a 20 year career, retired, and STILL not seen the first flight... This is not a criticism of the aircraft, just of the process. FC Building pyramids comes to mind. Just to think, in another world, a new plane enters service and its replacement was already in test flight. That replacement had its own replacement being designed with slide rules, and even that had a replacement idea in concept proposal on some napkins. Funny, they did this with slide rules. The more computers became involved, the longer it takes heeehh!!! In Physics II we had a sub teacher who worked on SR-71 design. We talked after class a bit and I mentioned that I was impressed he did that with slide rules. He laughed and said he never thought of it that way. Quote
+SayethWhaaaa Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 But cost blowouts, technical delays and the like are expected and are part of the norm now. I blame it mostly on government/business co-operation. Back in the day, when a contract was tendered, a viable alternative was always established. Should you not meet or fulfill the contract to the letter, you get the arse and the other plane gets the win, leaving you to foot the bill. What alternative is there with the F-35? What happens to the USAF when each unit of 5th Gen fighters is costing far in excess of $100 million, up from the $40-$60 million price range now for similar capacity off-the-shelf aircraft (Latest model F-15s/F-16s etc) and way off from the original projections? That said, I do keep hearing rumors that the ANG are contemplating the possibility of replacing their existing fleets with SuperBugs as their remaining airframe lives round down. I don't think I could see the ANG buying "Navy" aircraft somehow... even if there is a precedent. Quote
+DWCAce Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 Looks like the A400M is on the chopping block: Click Here! Quote
+Gocad Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) The A400M program has been a disaster from day one, but sadly I do believe that they won't kill it off. EADS knows that eventually they will receive the billions they "ask" for, although I doubt that this will be the end of it... Edited January 19, 2010 by Gocad Quote
shotdown Posted January 20, 2010 Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) Military aircraft programs are getting ridiculous in terms of time from initial concept to operational status. Fighter type aircraft are bad enough (yes, I'm looking at you F-22)...but even straight forward concepts like a transport are taking way too long. With the A400M, you could have literally have seen the concept designs, then started a 20 year career, retired, and STILL not seen the first flight... This is not a criticism of the aircraft, just of the process. FC This is what happens when you buy for political reasons instead of simply buying what you need. Actually it remind me a lot of Real Madrid. They hire international stars simply because they are famous, instead of thinking of the kind of player they need. Edited January 20, 2010 by shotdown Quote
+JediMaster Posted January 20, 2010 Posted January 20, 2010 Sports is a different animal. Teams make money by selling tickets and merchandise. How much you win or lose really has little bearing! In theory you'll sell more when winning vs losing, but in reality grand personalities and other drama can be more beneficial than a top record. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.