PHOTO OP: A400M meets the neighbors



Airbus Military has released a new photo showing the A400M lined up next to the Lockheed Martin C-130J and Boeing C-17. The photo was taken last month at RAF Brize-Norton, which is the only base so far destined to house all three heavy Western airlifters still in production. This is the first photo that I am aware of showing all three aircraft grouped side-by-side. 



Photo courtesy Airbus Military


Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, ,

13 Responses to PHOTO OP: A400M meets the neighbors

  1. ThomasL 19 August, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    Anyone know how much better fuel efficiency the A400M is expected to get vs. the C-17?

  2. Dave 19 August, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    If the Brits are as hard up for cash as some claim, why are they still pursuing this A400 boondoggle?

  3. Uwe 19 August, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Because they are hard up for cash?
    ( and thus are dependent on having the right equipment
    and not oversized stuff that does half empty runs for
    double the money ;-)

  4. keesje 19 August, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    It moves big loads into soft terrain.

  5. RunningBear 20 August, 2010 at 4:52 am #

    AIRCRAFT UNIT/COST MAXCARGO(LB) 463L/PALLETS SQ/FT
    C-17 $250m 170,900 18 1,584
    A-400M $212.5m 82,000 7 763
    C-130J-30 $176.5m 44,000 8 522
    C-27J $ 25.5m 25,353 3.5 224.8

    It may be the “Sweet Spot” between the “Cs”, if it can handle the “Rough Runways” with better fuel efficiency.

  6. Aussie Digger 20 August, 2010 at 5:40 am #

    Uwe, if C-17′s are doing half empty runs, so will A400m’s, because C-130J’s are as well. It’s an unfortunate reality of the predominantly light infantry/air-mobile ops that are currently being conducted…

    Being hard up for cash and investing in a new airlifter that really is neither fish nor fowl (it ain’t a true strategic airlifter but it’s much bigger than a tactical airlifter), especially when you have 2 relatively new fleets of airlifters already in-service that are doing a good job, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

    Personally I think RAF would be better off consolidating on either C-130J-30 or A400m, in addition to the C-17. Running 3x separate types with significantly over-lapping missions in a fiscally constrained time, makes no sense whatsoever…

  7. Nanook 20 August, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    If you can believe the rumour mill (big if, I know) the forthcoming SDR will see the RAF standardize on the C-17 and the A400, with the retirement of the Herc fleet. Time will tell but it sounds plausible to me as with all the cutbacks I can’t see them running three types when two will do.

  8. Jack 20 August, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    Like the KC-30 which will be burning more fuel while carrying more deadweight as a tanker? Typical double standard from a fanboy.

    Great to see all 3 planes in one shot. You can actually see how LM could have a hard time competing against the A400M if EADS finally gets this plane right. Maybe they can bring back PW Canada to get some sane engine to power this plane.

  9. Tim D-T 20 August, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    How about a picture where they are all an equal distance from the camera? Of course the A400 is in front, so it looks the biggest.

  10. Aussie Digger 21 August, 2010 at 4:15 am #

    I was going to make comment about that too, Tim. The A400m has clearly been positioned to show itself in it’s best light in this photo, compared to it’s ‘competitors’…

  11. ikkeman 23 August, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    looking at the pic, why didn’t they just slap on some turboprops and straighten the wing on a C-17.

  12. moryphius 1 September, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    softer and shorter runways a plus BUT….
    a400m 20% cheaper per unit then c-17 BUT CAN ONLY CARRY 50% PAYLOAD WEIGHT AND ONLY 75% THE DISTANCE
    AND 35MPH SLOWER THEN THE C-17.

  13. turbotax deluxe online 18 November, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Another possibility, and the one urged by the center’s brief, is the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” The virtues of that clause are it makes sense by its terms and there is some evidence that its framers specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.

Leave a Reply