@@miketaylor1916 So your pick to transport 25 tons to a CBR 6 strip without destroying the surface and with enough fuel for a 500NM return trip would be...?
@@alanmcmillan6969 Greetings. Taking off from a beach is not a big deal. Repeatedly landing on a CBR 6 strip repeatedly without trashing the strip is a big deal. And the A400M performs that mission rather well.
How's reliability? Weren't there development issues with the gearbox in part due to how components/assemblies were split between the consortium partner countries/companies?
They had major issues initially. They worked them out. Lest we forget, the C-130J was almost cancelled because of the problems Lockheed Martin encountered. New engines on a forty year old airframe and it almost failed.
@@marcg1686C-17 was also almost cancelled, and the entire fleet needed new wing spars early on in production due to design defects. Nowadays it's an absolute workhorse.
@@Orbital_Inclination The C-17 is indeed a workhorse. One thing that MDC and later Boeing never did was to improve the landing gear. The C-17's greatest strength is flying large unitary loads from one asphalt runway to another and refueling at the destination. Landing on a CBR 6 strip with enough fuel for a return trip massively limits its payload.
@@Orbital_InclinationI miss the smaller jet transports that led to the C-17 like the YC-14. Those were supposed to replace the C-130 but the Hercules is amazingly long-lived.
It is when you are delivering freight over long distances. And why keep an inferior airframe with the added inventory costs? Apart from which the RAF Hercules were hard used airframes.
Yeah potentially good idea for Special forces / SAS but I think a lot of these things comes down to cost, as you would have to have maintain equipment, parts and crew for two types of completely different aircraft. Who knows what politics goes on behind the veil.
Those kinds of issues get dealt with through modification programmes, as a fairly standard part of most airframes development through service life. C-17 had a complete wing spar redesign and replacement, and Typhoon had speedbrake adjustments as a result of unforeseen turbulence fatigue on the tail. These things happen. Simulation in the design stage and early flying trials can't catch everything, which is one of the reasons we have continuing airworthiness management in the armed forces.
The Hawk production line last produced aircraft a couple of years ago, but collaborative efforts like this make perfect sense as we can pool budgets and resources, for economies of scale we otherwise couldn't achieve
@Orbital_Inclination no excuse me. I'm not ok with collaborative efforts. Every country must stay souvrain on his military basis. Actually, england deserves his nickname, "american puppy" or "Nato one paw quack" because it relies on allied supplies and industries. Even hollywood maje james Bond died on the movie and made etgan Hunt the survival legend....
@@JeanBatiste5158so you'd rather we developed an inferior aircraft with a far more limited budget and manufacturing capability, than produced a decent aircraft as a joint effort? Another case of pointless nationalism coming before common sense or military effectiveness.
It has more control redundancy than any mechanically controlled aircraft, as the wires don't have to follow the same routings to control surfaces. Digital cockpits are also more reliable than analogue instruments, and if one screen fails, the information can be replicated on the others. They also have reversionary backup modes.
Not really, just understaffed for what is asked of them. We still manage to deliver on taskings routinely, but it takes a toll on the workforce as there aren't enough people to spread the burden.
Captain and co-pilot sit on the left and right respectively, but share the flying between them as Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring, so the stick location is just something they have to learn to deal with.
Pilot in charge flies left handed even with a yoke, because power lever/throttle, prop (and mixture if present) controls are in the centre and managed with the right hand.
Hardest working aircraft? Really? I remember being on the C130Js and we used to take on a fair majority of the A400M tasking because they are always U/S.
Well facts say different. A detailed report over 5 months gave the following: A400M C-130J Availability rate 65-70% Below 60% Number of aircraft available 13-14 Fewer than 8 Confirmed by 'Airforce Technology': "The UK Royal Air Force’s (RAF) C-130J tactical transport aircraft have had a lower availability than their C-17 and A400M counterparts in 14 out of the past 19 months, beginning 1 March 2021 to 1 September 2022, including five months where the fleet availability rate dropped below 60%"
@@1chishhow many actual airframes were available against total fleet numbers. I would assume that the J was being wound down, so was probably intended to have low availability rate. Better to compare a previous year, say 2019 for comparison
@@gholfin2124 Nice try at mitigating it but the numbers are very clearly laid out. The clue to your answer is the percentages of fleet. Should we go to the first year of A400M introduction (2014) when we had 3 x A400Ms just to make the C-130 look better? The C-130 is an old design albeit a good one but the RAF Hercules had been worked very hard and we now have a far more capable and more reliable aircraft and more of them. What exactly is the issue?
@@1chish the issue is the timeframe you are referring to, you have taken a time period to suit your point, you could have chosen a different period but it wouldn’t suit your narrative, as the C130 was being wound down at the time it was always going to struggle, due to the political will of the decision makers (as told to me by 47 sqn aircrew at RIAT 22) to justify their decision. percentages hide reality, ‘lies, damn lies and statistics!’ and all that. The C130 doesn’t need a timeframe, it has its place in aviation and RAF history. Capability depends on what you need, A400 does have a heavier payload and can travel further, but can it deploy SF assets into hostile territory? Why have the French just purchased 4 x C130Js for SF role?
@@gholfin2124 Can I preface my remarks by asking a simple question? Why do people like you seem incapable of accepting change and cling on to something in the past supporting it with at best dubious comments and downright falsehood? For example you suggest it doesn't need a timeframe because of its position in history. Apples & Pears right there Old Son. So how can a comparison be made in 1999 (the year C4s and C5s came into service) when there were no A400M aircraft? Last point first - Why are we getting the Frogs involved. They do what they do and who cares? Further to your SF point the A400M has been passed on all (published) SF requirements for some time. Not sure why you people who have downer on the A400M peddle this nonsense. On your main point: I referred to the published report on the two aircraft. I never chose anything or had to 'suit my narrative'. Again nice try at shifting the discussion and making it personal. And you accuse ME of 'having a narrative' when yours is all over your replies. Sorry but when looking at data percentages are pretty relevant as long as the data used is the same which it was in the study from which I quoted. As for capability the Fat Albert had limitations and the A400M exceeds those in every matrix - weight carried, volume available, cruise speed, unrefuelled range and austere landing envelope. And finally its interesting you quote 47 Squadron. Some more cynical than me would suggest their view was probably influenced by the fact they knew No 47 was to be stood down the year after RIAT2022.
Its a better Cargo plane than the C-130 because its bigger and can fly further but the C-130 was more suitable for Special Forces and was used (By the Americans) in so many different mission roles. (C-130 is the best plane in the world)
@@niweshlekhak9646 The C-17 is used as a Cargo Plane and it drops paratroopers and thats about it. The C-130 is used as a Cargo Plane, drops paratroopers, its a SAR aircraft, Special Operations platform, Flying Command Centre, Weather Recon, Drone Carrier, Gunship, Electronic Warfare, Air-to Air Refueller, Grounds forces refueller. The C-130 has been utilised in so many roles.
"dream to fly"??? not from some of the comments I've read online and, as far as I know, it still cannot meet all the SF requirements that the C130J could (you know the one you scrapped with 12 years of service life left).
Flying characteristics and ease to operate are different things to capability. Being an airbus aircraft with a lot of automation, the thing is pretty care-free to operate.
Typhoon wasn't popular with Germany because of WWII, when Typhoons used to strafe their troops. A400M was originally going to be called Grizzly, but the RAF seniors hated that name, so opted for Atlas instead.
@@Orbital_InclinationThe Eurofighter name for the EF2000 is older than the Typhoon (add-on) name. I guess the Brits more like catchier names for their aircraft and Typhoon certainly sounds cool especially for historical reasons. Also "Euro" is probably a bit despised on the Island. And no, we Germans don't give a flying unicorn whether there was an opposing plane in the war with the same name. Anyway, Typhoon was adopted in general to be the official name added to the Eurofighter brand for export reasons. In Germany we still call them Eurofighters since that name is longer around and got stuck in the minds. Both names are good and correct for this great aircraft.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
A decade already? Wow I feel old
FAMILY PROSPERITY PEACE PROSECUTION
The C-130 is still flying and that thing is almost 70 years old by now.
Saw one of these doing low fly bys over the cornish coast today, gotta say they're definitely a sight to behold
It was also over the New Forest today.
They occasionally do the flypast at the Edinburgh festival. Saw one flanked by 2 Typhoons. Total chonker of an aircraft, but pretty modern looking.
C-17 has been the true hero, serving for twice as long.
@2:10 Sudan evacuation mentioned ... without acknowledging that the A400M was initially thought too heavy for the runway there
Une belle observation
Amazing
Welcome
A Great plane. And capable for snything.
@@alanmcmillan6969 not really. Doesn’t like sand or dirt.
@miketaylor1916 They just showed it taking off on a beach!
@@miketaylor1916
So your pick to transport 25 tons to a CBR 6 strip without destroying the surface and with enough fuel for a 500NM return trip would be...?
@@marcg1686 🥱😴 sorry nodded off then 😴🥱
@@alanmcmillan6969
Greetings. Taking off from a beach is not a big deal. Repeatedly landing on a CBR 6 strip repeatedly without trashing the strip is a big deal. And the A400M performs that mission rather well.
How's reliability? Weren't there development issues with the gearbox in part due to how components/assemblies were split between the consortium partner countries/companies?
They had major issues initially.
They worked them out.
Lest we forget, the C-130J was almost cancelled because of the problems Lockheed Martin encountered.
New engines on a forty year old airframe and it almost failed.
@@marcg1686C-17 was also almost cancelled, and the entire fleet needed new wing spars early on in production due to design defects. Nowadays it's an absolute workhorse.
@@Orbital_Inclination
The C-17 is indeed a workhorse.
One thing that MDC and later Boeing never did was to improve the landing gear.
The C-17's greatest strength is flying large unitary loads from one asphalt runway to another and refueling at the destination.
Landing on a CBR 6 strip with enough fuel for a return trip massively limits its payload.
@@Orbital_InclinationI miss the smaller jet transports that led to the C-17 like the YC-14. Those were supposed to replace the C-130 but the Hercules is amazingly long-lived.
The RAF should have kept at least one C130 Sqn as the the Atlas might be bigger. But bigger is not always best.
It is when you are delivering freight over long distances. And why keep an inferior airframe with the added inventory costs? Apart from which the RAF Hercules were hard used airframes.
Yeah potentially good idea for Special forces / SAS but I think a lot of these things comes down to cost, as you would have to have maintain equipment, parts and crew for two types of completely different aircraft. Who knows what politics goes on behind the veil.
C130 is also cheaper to run. Best is a mixture of both in your fleet.
@@jado3069it's more expensive to operate two separate types, even if one is cheaper per flying hour
@@Orbital_Inclination The german and french have a combined C-130 fleet to reduce costs and to have a plane for shorter runways.
C-17's go ok too ;)
Still adding trim to get rid of the vibration on the flight deck.......and how is the wing box cracking doing ?
Those kinds of issues get dealt with through modification programmes, as a fairly standard part of most airframes development through service life.
C-17 had a complete wing spar redesign and replacement, and Typhoon had speedbrake adjustments as a result of unforeseen turbulence fatigue on the tail. These things happen.
Simulation in the design stage and early flying trials can't catch everything, which is one of the reasons we have continuing airworthiness management in the armed forces.
Can load a Chinook; blades on, mast on, u/c down?
It can carry a Chinook but even a C-5 Galaxy requires the Chinook Blades to come off and the mast to come down!.
@ ‘Twas a joke, as the commentator should have mentioned that fact.
@@gazof-the-north1980 the Chinook propellers are removed for safety reasons.
How many do we have?
22
If it flies, it's a real "Dreamliner"! 😉😈😂
remember the first time it came to riat
When was the last time England made an aircraft by her own?!!
The Hawk production line last produced aircraft a couple of years ago, but collaborative efforts like this make perfect sense as we can pool budgets and resources, for economies of scale we otherwise couldn't achieve
@Orbital_Inclination no excuse me. I'm not ok with collaborative efforts.
Every country must stay souvrain on his military basis.
Actually, england deserves his nickname, "american puppy" or "Nato one paw quack" because it relies on allied supplies and industries.
Even hollywood maje james Bond died on the movie and made etgan Hunt the survival legend....
@@JeanBatiste5158so you'd rather we developed an inferior aircraft with a far more limited budget and manufacturing capability, than produced a decent aircraft as a joint effort?
Another case of pointless nationalism coming before common sense or military effectiveness.
@@JeanBatiste5158 I think you mean the United Kingdom, not England.
@martinfox3478 anyway the island in europe who brexit and become The USA best puppy
you can fit a chinook in an A400?!
🎉🎉🎉🎉❤
So given its fly by wire, and it’s a digital cockpit, how will it stand up should any of those systems be battle damaged?
It has more control redundancy than any mechanically controlled aircraft, as the wires don't have to follow the same routings to control surfaces.
Digital cockpits are also more reliable than analogue instruments, and if one screen fails, the information can be replicated on the others. They also have reversionary backup modes.
Just be honest people our armed forces are on their arses
Not really, just understaffed for what is asked of them. We still manage to deliver on taskings routinely, but it takes a toll on the workforce as there aren't enough people to spread the burden.
@@Orbital_Inclinationso even after all you said you agree that out forces are indeed, on their arses.
@@Jimmythefish577no, the air force can still deliver the output asked of it, its just being asked too much of for the size of it
but its not a Fat Albert
But worrying the pilot doesn’t know his left from right, ha.
Why do captains site on the left? Always thought most people are right handed so be a nightmare flying stick with your left hand lol
Captain and co-pilot sit on the left and right respectively, but share the flying between them as Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring, so the stick location is just something they have to learn to deal with.
Pilot in charge flies left handed even with a yoke, because power lever/throttle, prop (and mixture if present) controls are in the centre and managed with the right hand.
@@Orbital_Inclination like every Airbus made since the A300/A310….
@@chrishowe2935 and when the co-pilot is PF?
Hardest working aircraft? Really? I remember being on the C130Js and we used to take on a fair majority of the A400M tasking because they are always U/S.
Well facts say different. A detailed report over 5 months gave the following:
A400M C-130J
Availability rate 65-70% Below 60%
Number of aircraft available 13-14 Fewer than 8
Confirmed by 'Airforce Technology':
"The UK Royal Air Force’s (RAF) C-130J tactical transport aircraft have had a lower availability than their C-17 and A400M counterparts in 14 out of the past 19 months, beginning 1 March 2021 to 1 September 2022, including five months where the fleet availability rate dropped below 60%"
@@1chishhow many actual airframes were available against total fleet numbers. I would assume that the J was being wound down, so was probably intended to have low availability rate. Better to compare a previous year, say 2019 for comparison
@@gholfin2124 Nice try at mitigating it but the numbers are very clearly laid out. The clue to your answer is the percentages of fleet. Should we go to the first year of A400M introduction (2014) when we had 3 x A400Ms just to make the C-130 look better?
The C-130 is an old design albeit a good one but the RAF Hercules had been worked very hard and we now have a far more capable and more reliable aircraft and more of them. What exactly is the issue?
@@1chish the issue is the timeframe you are referring to, you have taken a time period to suit your point, you could have chosen a different period but it wouldn’t suit your narrative, as the C130 was being wound down at the time it was always going to struggle, due to the political will of the decision makers (as told to me by 47 sqn aircrew at RIAT 22) to justify their decision. percentages hide reality, ‘lies, damn lies and statistics!’ and all that. The C130 doesn’t need a timeframe, it has its place in aviation and RAF history. Capability depends on what you need, A400 does have a heavier payload and can travel further, but can it deploy SF assets into hostile territory? Why have the French just purchased 4 x C130Js for SF role?
@@gholfin2124 Can I preface my remarks by asking a simple question? Why do people like you seem incapable of accepting change and cling on to something in the past supporting it with at best dubious comments and downright falsehood? For example you suggest it doesn't need a timeframe because of its position in history. Apples & Pears right there Old Son. So how can a comparison be made in 1999 (the year C4s and C5s came into service) when there were no A400M aircraft?
Last point first - Why are we getting the Frogs involved. They do what they do and who cares?
Further to your SF point the A400M has been passed on all (published) SF requirements for some time. Not sure why you people who have downer on the A400M peddle this nonsense.
On your main point:
I referred to the published report on the two aircraft. I never chose anything or had to 'suit my narrative'. Again nice try at shifting the discussion and making it personal. And you accuse ME of 'having a narrative' when yours is all over your replies.
Sorry but when looking at data percentages are pretty relevant as long as the data used is the same which it was in the study from which I quoted.
As for capability the Fat Albert had limitations and the A400M exceeds those in every matrix - weight carried, volume available, cruise speed, unrefuelled range and austere landing envelope.
And finally its interesting you quote 47 Squadron. Some more cynical than me would suggest their view was probably influenced by the fact they knew No 47 was to be stood down the year after RIAT2022.
Its a better Cargo plane than the C-130 because its bigger and can fly further but the C-130 was more suitable for Special Forces and was used (By the Americans) in so many different mission roles. (C-130 is the best plane in the world)
C-17 is better than C-130. There is variant of C-17 with stealth coating.
@@niweshlekhak9646 The C-17 is used as a Cargo Plane and it drops paratroopers and thats about it. The C-130 is used as a Cargo Plane, drops paratroopers, its a SAR aircraft, Special Operations platform, Flying Command Centre, Weather Recon, Drone Carrier, Gunship, Electronic Warfare, Air-to Air Refueller, Grounds forces refueller. The C-130 has been utilised in so many roles.
@@gazof-the-north1980 C-17 is used by Special Operations more than C-130.
@@niweshlekhak9646 ??? When have the 160th SOAR been refuelled by a C-17? The MC-130 is the Special Ops plane.
@@gazof-the-north1980 Never does 160th SOAR release info about refueling.
LOST IN DECADE MAINTAIN IN DETAILS TECHNOLOGY DREAM
"dream to fly"??? not from some of the comments I've read online and, as far as I know, it still cannot meet all the SF requirements that the C130J could (you know the one you scrapped with 12 years of service life left).
Flying characteristics and ease to operate are different things to capability. Being an airbus aircraft with a lot of automation, the thing is pretty care-free to operate.
France has no heavy lift capabilities
Hercules on Steroids
The A400-M is nowhere near as reliable as the C130 Hercules, and we get one third less flying time because of maintenance issues.
That tends to happen with newer platforms. They get better with age. The A400M is also more capable.
Why does the UK always call their aircraft different then anyone else using them?
A400m vs Atlas
Eurofighter vs Typhoon
Typhoon wasn't popular with Germany because of WWII, when Typhoons used to strafe their troops.
A400M was originally going to be called Grizzly, but the RAF seniors hated that name, so opted for Atlas instead.
The official name under service is still the Eurofighter typhoon so it’s not even a Eurofighter vs typhoon situation like you put it.
@@Orbital_InclinationThe Eurofighter name for the EF2000 is older than the Typhoon (add-on) name. I guess the Brits more like catchier names for their aircraft and Typhoon certainly sounds cool especially for historical reasons. Also "Euro" is probably a bit despised on the Island. And no, we Germans don't give a flying unicorn whether there was an opposing plane in the war with the same name. Anyway, Typhoon was adopted in general to be the official name added to the Eurofighter brand for export reasons. In Germany we still call them Eurofighters since that name is longer around and got stuck in the minds. Both names are good and correct for this great aircraft.
It’s a bit of a paper weight from what i hear…
You need your hearing tested. Or better still stop throwing shady innuendos.
@ what ever sausage.
@@miketaylor1916
Nice content -free reposte.
@ ok poppet 😘
Has never helped the people of Gaza