The U.S. Air Force will not be buying any. We have the proven and reliable workhorse known as the C-130 Hercules. In service near 60 years now. We have a saying "if it aint broke don't fix it."
the A400m needs to stop appearing at airshows and start appearing in air forces
yeah right now the specs say it can outdo the C-130 legacy models and the newer C-130J, but at the rate airbus is dragging its feet, the next C-130 model will elicpse the A400m
Opinions are like bum holes, everyone has one but everyone´s but your own stinks.
Why buy the M400 when there already is excellent cargo aircraft on the market ready for sale with proven background????. Hell no, in this case i think Airbus has done a huge mistake but is stuck with this aircraft and to not lose face in the public pumping more and more money in to a project that is doomed from the start.
i like the c-17 over this because of two factors. 1= c-17 can carry twice as more cargo is terms of weight. 2= c-17 has been proven in combat zones and has proved to be very reliable and very useful.
1. It can carry more weight because it has more powerful engines, but those engines burn allot more fuel and depending on mission sometimes that power is not required hence is no economical. Everything has its role, this is obviously not meant to replace C-17, but to compete with C-130. 2. This point is absurd. This is a brand new airplane, a few years ago, the C-17 was also not proven in combat. Give it time and it will prove itself one way or the other.
A400M=Fail in so many ways. Give it up Airbus and save a few billions which is better to use on the solving all the problems with the A380. Airbus=Failbus.
Yes... the A400M was over budget and was overweight.... just like the C-17 was when it came out of the factory. This is usually always the case with brand new airplanes, it is almost impossible to predict the outcome of a project and the hurdles of development. Some people choose to forget history and just badmouth something for the hell of it, like you do.
They have moisture sensitive sensors in the engines? It's a freaking transport aircraft that SHOULD be able to go into wet and humid areas like the C-130.
Airbus should just stick to their sissy computer controlled airliners.
C-130J.....fixed.
rabbitcancer 3 months ago
The U.S. Air Force will not be buying any. We have the proven and reliable workhorse known as the C-130 Hercules. In service near 60 years now. We have a saying "if it aint broke don't fix it."
ImFaceman 5 months ago
the A400m needs to stop appearing at airshows and start appearing in air forces
yeah right now the specs say it can outdo the C-130 legacy models and the newer C-130J, but at the rate airbus is dragging its feet, the next C-130 model will elicpse the A400m
verdebusterAP 5 months ago
Opinions are like bum holes, everyone has one but everyone´s but your own stinks.
Why buy the M400 when there already is excellent cargo aircraft on the market ready for sale with proven background????. Hell no, in this case i think Airbus has done a huge mistake but is stuck with this aircraft and to not lose face in the public pumping more and more money in to a project that is doomed from the start.
Sooksawaspakdee961 7 months ago
i like the c-17 over this because of two factors. 1= c-17 can carry twice as more cargo is terms of weight. 2= c-17 has been proven in combat zones and has proved to be very reliable and very useful.
calzz5757 7 months ago
@calzz5757
1. It can carry more weight because it has more powerful engines, but those engines burn allot more fuel and depending on mission sometimes that power is not required hence is no economical. Everything has its role, this is obviously not meant to replace C-17, but to compete with C-130. 2. This point is absurd. This is a brand new airplane, a few years ago, the C-17 was also not proven in combat. Give it time and it will prove itself one way or the other.
HDaviator 7 months ago
A400M=Fail in so many ways. Give it up Airbus and save a few billions which is better to use on the solving all the problems with the A380. Airbus=Failbus.
Sooksawaspakdee961 7 months ago
@Sooksawaspakdee961
Yes... the A400M was over budget and was overweight.... just like the C-17 was when it came out of the factory. This is usually always the case with brand new airplanes, it is almost impossible to predict the outcome of a project and the hurdles of development. Some people choose to forget history and just badmouth something for the hell of it, like you do.
HDaviator 7 months ago
They have moisture sensitive sensors in the engines? It's a freaking transport aircraft that SHOULD be able to go into wet and humid areas like the C-130.
Airbus should just stick to their sissy computer controlled airliners.
ysflightman 8 months ago
@ysflightman
Those sensors where only used for the flight tests. Of course it can fly into wet and humid areas.
HDaviator 7 months ago
@HDaviator Oh I see. My bad.
ysflightman 7 months ago
a400m is biggest disaster in aviation history piece of crap
jers59 8 months ago
@jers59 I think its a tie between this and the F-35. I think you'd agree.
ImYourRealDad 8 months ago
@ImYourRealDad Sorry the a400m has been under development since 1989 the F35 not neerly as long
jers59 8 months ago
@jers59 That's true, but the F-35 has turned out to be a huge let down in it's capabilities. Not to mention the cost involved!!
ImYourRealDad 8 months ago
C17 de Helice?
Werner312 8 months ago
@Werner312 no men este es mucho mas pequeño
fsrodolfitocarlos 8 months ago
E Boh...Domenica mio padre ci va e io non posso .-.
x6xburzumx6x 8 months ago