Can someone explain me what's happening with the A400M

Was supposed to be something really good
Looks like it's a fail isn't it?

Attached: airbus-la-charge-2017-liee-a-l-a400m-pourrait-etre-reevaluee.jpg (612x306, 18K)

It's basically an F-35 that can fly yeah, that's how big a failure it is.

there isnt a unified army in europe to have any need of a stategic lift user

as a plane its awesome but it has no value on europe

It's made by Yuros. A bunch of nations who are at this point considering to bring a TAX on CO2 because they think it would save the world from global warming.
Do you need to know more to see why the A400 is a shitshow?

is pretty much a fancier, faster c130 with more range. engines had problems until recently but those seem to have been fixed. apart from that, its propably just too expensive for what it does but without alternatives for europe.
germany and netherlands have already fused some divisions and there is some indication that france and belgium are going to join too.

ok pierre
>buzzwords
ok tyrone

Airbus has had serious problems with the engines that still aren't entirely rectified, spare parts availability is an issue that affects ready rate, and the program has still ended up years behind schedule and over budget for where it should be. Seems like a good aircraft marred by mismanagement and that will never quite live up to the success of the C130.

Military Mobility is one of the PESCO projects currently underway. The plan is to have the same transport plane for the whole EU as part of the EU defence reforms

How is it a fail?

It has a value for France at least for obvious reasons.

It carries a max 37 tons payload, against 33 tons of the hercules (although in some wikis max payload for the hercules is listed as 20 tons), and with a bigger cargo bay (17.7 meters long, 4 wide, 3.8 high) vs (16.7 long, 3 width, 2.7 high).
The hercules has a range of 3791 with max payload, the a400 a bit less (3200km), but it has more range with same payload.
I would say that the a400 is better, but its more expensive, as several countries delayed their purchases, or cut the numbers. And its too expensive for too countries.
About why eurocountries need it, well, ask southern countries )specially france, then pain, and then italy) who has a lot of issues with situations in africa

Every program has technical, schedule and budget issues. If A300M is a failure by such standards, what is F-35 then.

You're moving the goalposts. Take a look at a comparable aircraft, the C130J and see how many units have been ordered and delivered, unit cost, development time and budgeting, and program longevity (60 years for the entire Hercules program.)

So its gonna sell like hotcakes and cause intense butthurt from all who reads WarIsBoring?

A400 is like a bigger C-130 that can't do half the things a C-130 does.
It can't do tandem stick parachute jumps (from the side doors or from the ramp) because the airflow behind the aircraft always makes the jumpers drift across each other.
Refuelling from A400M was found to be too unstable for most helicopter pilots to deal with and the test pilots generally felt unsafe doing it.
Airbus ran tests to try and solve the heli refuelling issues last year with a 30m longer refuelling drogue, but there has been no word on if it has improved anything or if partners are still willing to fund the development of that capability.

To replace the Transall C-160 in paratrooper and SOF support roles, France has decided in the end to buy more C-130Js (and may keep some C-130Hs that they had planned to retire), and Germany is now also buying C-130s to operate in a joint air wing with the French. Both orders include KC-130Js

Define "Failure" OP..Even the fucking Malaysian managed to put A400M for Combat HADR during battle of Marawi.

Attached: MAB_6157-2.jpg (1878x1000, 102K)

>can't do half the things a C-130 does.
exaggeration: the post

What are the different mission sets for tactical transport aircraft?
Airlift, airdrop, airborne assault and (often) refuelling.
C-130 can do all of those, A400M can only really do two.

>A400M can only really do two.
exaggeration: the post

Italy doesn't use the A400M, they still use the c130

Oh look, it's that thread again where a dumb mutt shits on a random piece of military hardware simply because it isn't designed/built by mutts.

can we calm down with the m word please.....

Attached: 1550871252840.png (432x432, 94K)

>10%-50% better payload than C-130 (depending on variant and whose numbers you use)
>80%-90% of the cost of a C-17

>build unnecessary euro transport to awkwardly compete with super hercules
>justify it with muh jobs
>fail to attract significant orders
>cut production to 10/yr to make production, ie jobs, last longer
>thanks for the order goyim, you'll get your plane sometime in the 2030s

It's not a fail, just like the F35. Many people shit on them, and now they have to shut the fuck up because they were wrong

F35 has over 3000 orders user

Attached: 1561650998351.jpg (549x721, 73K)

/Thread