It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USAAF AN-70 or A400M

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
The A400M is twice the size of the C130J and half the size of the C17 (roughly). The A400M is a different aeroplane.

Let’s look at a hypothetical future where the USAAF requires a larger aircraft than C130J and the C17 line has been closed or is just too expensive / inappropriate for the job in hand.

Let’s say EADS teams up with Lockeed Martin to offer a US version of the A400M.

Would it be preposterous for Beoing to team up with Antonov to offer a US version of the AN-70, the only comparably sized alternative to the A400M.

What do you think the US would do with these two offerings and would the US really contemplate acquiring Russian equipment?

Are there any other contenders (apart from “artists impressions”)

Cheers




posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
A400M
Theres no way the US will buy or use Russian/Ukraine designed
and built aircraft.
The A400m is the perfect aircraft because the herc has had its day.
It is weight limited with no growth potential.
Entice the USA with two production lines with content specific.
USA build on US soil and share orders down the track to accomadate.
Unless a super herc comes along (wider airframe and longer)
Personally i like the Japanese C-X to be built in the USA under the
Boeing banner as it looks like a two engined Globemaster iii
anyway.
A-400M Max. Payload: 37 tonnes (82,000 lb)
C-130 Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
C-X Payload: Max:30+ metric tons (120ton TOW) (Max:37.6 tons)
link









[edit on 11-3-2008 by Jezza]



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
There hasnt been a USAAF since 1947




posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

Ah well, you know what I mean.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
A400M its alot more mobile and inexpensive plus its not russian. America would feel less patriotic and would feel insecure.
But seriously i would choose the A400M because its an 'american' plane.

Deny Ignorance

Semoro



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Isn't Boeing already proposing a revamp of the An-70 in partnership with Antonov anyway? I'm sure I read that in Flight?

The An-70 is already far too good to go waste, it remains to be seen how the A-400M matches up to it.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


given the recent political fallout because the US is buying `french` i really REALLY doubt they will be buying anything from `red russia` no matter how good or cheap (or even free)



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Wouldn't Boeing enter the Chinook and then litigate for the win?



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   


What do you think the US would do with these two offerings and would the US really contemplate acquiring Russian equipment?


The Ukraine is actually pro western and needs the west's support through investment.

It's actually the superior design out of the A400M and the An-70. I recall these facts from memory.

It can heft 20 tonnes (40,000lb) from an 800 metre dirt strip and fly 2,100nm or from a 1200m sealed runway can carry 20t over 5000nm.

Alternately you can load her to 56 tonnes payload and using a 2000 metre runway can fly over 2000nm.

The cargo bay is much bigger than the A400m with dimensions of 4m wide by 4.1m high making it exceptionally useful for transporting helicopters to theatre.

Physically it can accommodate three LACV-30 Grizzleys versus two on the A400M.

It does need better western avionics, but that should not be an obstacle. If we abandon the Ukraine it will eventually slip back into the Russian sphere of influence.




posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Ukraine's NATO bid to be discussed during Bush's visit

KIEV, March 13 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine's president said on Thursday that his country's moves toward membership of NATO would be discussed during U.S. President George W. Bush's visit in late March. Viktor Yushchenko was quoted by his press office as saying after talks with European Union leaders in Brussels that the Membership Action Plan that paves the way for membership in the military bloc would be discussed with Bush in Kiev.
The visit by the U.S. president will take place on March 31-April 1, ahead of a NATO summit in Romania in April.
Yushchenko said he was positive the NATO summit would back the Ukrainian leaders' request to allow the ex-Soviet state to join the action plan.
"I am positive we will realize our desire to join the Membership Action Plan," he said.
In January, Ukraine's pro-Western president, prime minister and parliamentary speaker sent a letter to the alliance's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer saying they hoped that the country could join the plan.
Opposition parties recently blocked parliamentary work for over a month in protest against the move, demanding a referendum on the matter. Recent opinion polls showed that over 50% of Ukrainians would vote against joining NATO.
story...

This would be a good thing wouldnt it?????
the russians would be pissed though



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
It might actually be a bit too destabilising, the Russians already feel hemmed in with the pro western stance of their former allies, NATO membership by the Ukraine itself may prove to be a pill too bitter to swallow, Putin is already getting jumpy as witnesseed by Russia's recent 'threats'. I would have thought that Neutrality would be a safer option



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
quick question for A400M
Why the contra-rotating propeller was not used on A400M?
The power of engine the A400M fitted with seem to be equal to the engine the An-70 fitted.
The contra-rotating propeller looks more efficient than common fan.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza
A400M
Theres no way the US will buy or use Russian/Ukraine designed
and built aircraft.


I would have to agree with that one. Plus, does anybody know how much work would it take to get the AN-70 certified????



The A400m is the perfect aircraft because the herc has had its day.
It is weight limited with no growth potential.


I do disagree that the C-130 is done. It does fit several spots in the the whole logistics / mobility arena.


However I do think you are spot on with the C-X. I can see Lockmart or Boeing partnering with Japan to produce the airframe.

On the otherhand, political consideration may have the US buy the A400 if the tanker rebid goes to Boeing. The A400 would be a nice addition to the AMC if and only if it does not put a dent in any future C-17 procurment.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by emile
 


Not sure, prop design is NOT an area of expertise. However, maybe the props are of a more efficient design? The Counter rotating assembly also adds weight weight etc.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Agree 100%. All problems that follow this aircraft are far more political speculations than real technical issues. The point is: it's flying perfectly, and her major issues are being resolved as they emerge.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join