User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 2:50:12 AM EDT
Is one clearly superior to the other?
The A400M is clearly a newer design, but according to Wiki, only four have been built, so it's unclear how they will hold up in the long term. There 206 C-130Js as of December 2010, so it should be pretty clear how well the C-130Js are doing. Maiden flight was in 1996, so they have been around a while. Opinions? 
C-130J 
A400M |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:01:53 AM EDT
[#1]
the 400 is a bad compromise...
if you want a plane that can do what a C-130J do, and do at the same time what a C-17 can do, you end up with an "averagish" plane.. that does everthing worse than the 2 others.. If you can afford it, C-130J's + C-17s is a much better plan than only A-400Ms |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:02:47 AM EDT
[#2]
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful.
As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:14:46 AM EDT
[#3]
I see, so the A400M is trying to do both the jobs of a C-130 and a C-17? I can see how that is an impossible task to do well.
Can an A400M get into short, screwed-up runways like a C-130 can? How about on snow and ice? For instance, using skids on Arctic and Antarctic runways? Since Airbus has the capability of producing a C-17 like aircraft, why not develop a C-17 clone and a smaller A400M? Maybe it's more cost effective to have just one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:18:24 AM EDT
[#4]
I actually fix C-130J's.
Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:21:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: I see, so the A400M is trying to do both the jobs of a C-130 and a C-17? I can see how that is an impossible task to do well. Can an A400M get into short, screwed-up runways like a C-130 can? How about on snow and ice? For instance, using skids on Arctic and Antarctic runways? Since Airbus has the capability of producing a C-17 like aircraft, why not develop a C-17 clone and a smaller A400M? Maybe it's more cost effective to have just one? because most of the clients of the A-400M couldnt afford to operate 2 different planes. Might have been a wrong economic math in the long term though.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:24:04 AM EDT
[#6]
It's more cost effective to allow the US to continue to shoulder most of Europe's defense, while pretending to be concerned, and developing a do-it-all like the A400M.
The UK, an island nation, and formerly THE global maritime power, now borrows P-3s from us, because they canceled their own maritime surveillance platform. European militaries, while highly trained, and well equipped, are a joke when viewed as an overall force. They've had 60 years of peace, provided by the US taxpayer, and it's made them complacent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 4:49:11 AM EDT
[#7]
My prediction is that the A400M will be a LIMITED success, never deployed in large numbers and limited in its applications.
It will never have the short field capability of the C130 and will never as be cheap to maintain as the C130. It will not equal the C-17 in any aspect. It'll do OK in the middle range between the C-17 and C-130's capabilities. But that may turn out to be a pretty limited application. I don't think the engineering isn't good, in fact it's probably an excellent piece of engineering. But I think they haven't thought this through and haven't built a cost-effective solution for a high demand market. I could be wrong, but only time will tell. The C-130 also has a huge advantage in the respect that everybody knows how to work on them. The platform has been in continuous production for over 50 years, so by now there aren't a lot of unknowns concerning the venerable and reliable Hercules platform. Meanwhile, the A400M has taken so long to get off the ground (literally) that it's now old enough, as a design, that if it were an airliner, its operators would be making plans for its retirement in a few more years. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:11:22 AM EDT
[#8]
Long live the Herc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:22:48 AM EDT
[#9]
I was just offered a job at Lockheed to work on their C-130J production line
 There were around six in various stages of manufacture there at their Georgia plant, right alongside the F22 line. It was worth the job interview just to get to tour the hanger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:24:56 AM EDT
[#10]
Who can actually afford the A400 is the real question.
The real price on the thing is going to be up there with ( and possibly even more) than a C-17 and look at the buys of those things. If countries could actually afford to operate enough of their own heavy lift,there wouldn't be such a good trade in rental Antonovs.Everybody is broke right now and most would just as soon get Afghanistan wrapped up and not have another decade long intervention on the far side of the globe. I like the plane but just calling it like I sees it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:24:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: 27s?I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:31:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
I was just offered a job at Lockheed to work on their C-130J production line
There were around six in various stages of manufacture there at their Georgia plant, right alongside the F22 line. It was worth the job interview just to get to tour the hanger. 
Marietta GA is My version of Mecca, only More Holy & worthy of Praise. 
The Ol' Crew Chief |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:34:31 AM EDT
[#13]
So someone hung fans on a C-17 and called it a 400M?
Hey I have an idea for a new plane! The 9000M. It's a C-5 Galaxy with TWELVE turboprops on it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:37:34 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
So someone hung fans on a C-17 and called it a 400M? Hey I have an idea for a new plane! The 9000M. It's a C-5 Galaxy with TWELVE turboprops on it. Russians already did that...its called an AN-22. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:38:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost. 
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:38:48 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:40:10 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So someone hung fans on a C-17 and called it a 400M? Hey I have an idea for a new plane! The 9000M. It's a C-5 Galaxy with TWELVE turboprops on it. Russians already did that...its called an AN-22. http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/an22a_cs.jpg BAH. Not even CLOSE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:40:43 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 27s?I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. I'm trying. Off to my bear hunt in about 15 minutes. I'll be in communicado till Saturday (which is drill  )Fight the good fight for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:42:56 AM EDT
[#19]
The A400 is a larger, much more expensive, less reliable version of the Transall. An aircraft designed less for any real market niche but to employ Euros semi-productively. While the idea of an in-between-er of a C-17 and C-130 makes sense, and there are plenty of 130A-H models that are tired, the answer should for Airbus should have been a C-27J type aircraft (like EMBRAER did) versus trying to go uber-high end. Even Andy couldn't defend the A400 with a straight face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:43:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. I'm trying. Off to my bear hunt in about 15 minutes. I'll be in communicado till Saturday (which is drill )
Fight the good fight for me. Saying things like that only reinforces the general perception that I'm your sock puppet. Be safe. ETA: If you trip over a rock and the ANG/USAF has to personnel recover your ass, I will be sitting on the ramp at Elmendorf to laugh my ass off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:49:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost.
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. Of all the ROW transport aircraft I'll be interesting in seeing if they work, the Brazilians KC-390 and the Kawasaki C-2 are the interesting ones. Had I been AFCOS (and I know you shudder at the thought!) I would have looked at a stone simple refueller to replace the existing -135s at a one for one....ETA: all of which would have gone to the ANG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:53:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Hercules! Hercules! Hercules!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:01:26 AM EDT
[#23]
looks like a C-141 and C-5 had a 3-way with a C-130
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:04:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost.
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. C130J = $62 million A400 = $136 million little people dollars So you'd get roughly 2 130J's and some change, not 3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:08:43 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost.
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. C130J = $62 million A400 = $136 million little people dollars So you'd get roughly 2 130J's and some change, not 3. Unit cost approx. €136 million 136 million Euros = 192.3448 million U.S. dollars |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:19:38 AM EDT
[#26]
From wiki:
On 9 January 2009, EADS announced that the first delivery has been postponed until at least 2012. EADS also indicated that it wanted to renegotiate "certain technical characteristics" of the aircraft.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#cite_note-23][24][/url] EADS has long maintained the first deliveries would begin three years after the A400M's first flight. The German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland has closely followed the A400M program and reported on 12 January 2009 that the aircraft is overweight by 12 tons and may not be able to achieve a critical performance requirement, the ability to airlift 32 tons. Sources told FTD at the time that the aircraft could only lift 29 tons, which is insufficient to carry a modern armored infantry fighting vehicle (like the Puma).[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#cite_note-24][25][/url] The FTD report prompted the chief of the German Air Force to say, "That is a disastrous development," and could delay deliveries to the Luftwaffe until 2014 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:22:50 AM EDT
[#27]
That Fifi-liner looks like the unholy love child of a C-17 and a Saab 2000.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:40:46 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
That Fifi-liner looks like the unholy love child of a C-17 and a Saab 2000. That would probably be a good airplane, actually. It took awhile for SAAB to get the turboprop right. When they did, there was no market for it. When the market materialized, SAAB was out of the manufacturing business. Like Fokker, a victim of market timing. Swedes Aren't Airplane Builders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:42:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost.
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. C130J = $62 million A400 = $136 million little people dollars So you'd get roughly 2 130J's and some change, not 3. Unit cost approx. €136 million 136 million Euros = 192.3448 million U.S. dollars Damn, little people dollars are creeping up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:57:00 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost.
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. C130J = $62 million A400 = $136 million little people dollars So you'd get roughly 2 130J's and some change, not 3. Unit cost approx. €136 million 136 million Euros = 192.3448 million U.S. dollars Damn, little people dollars are creeping up. Some of my best performing investments the last few years have been the extra funny money I've brought home over the years. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 7:30:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Fifi-liner looks like the unholy love child of a C-17 and a Saab 2000. That would probably be a good airplane, actually. It took awhile for SAAB to get the turboprop right. When they did, there was no market for it. When the market materialized, SAAB was out of the manufacturing business. Like Fokker, a victim of market timing. Swedes Aren't Airplane Builders. Shut your mouth! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 7:46:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Fifi-liner looks like the unholy love child of a C-17 and a Saab 2000. That would probably be a good airplane, actually. It took awhile for SAAB to get the turboprop right. When they did, there was no market for it. When the market materialized, SAAB was out of the manufacturing business. Like Fokker, a victim of market timing. Swedes Aren't Airplane Builders. Shut your mouth! Don't worry, EMBRAER stands for Every Mechanical Breakdown Requires An Electrical Reset |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 7:47:45 AM EDT
[#33]
The Airbus looks like a C17 with props.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:15:54 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A400M is roughly twice the size of a C-130. It's a really, really big airplane, roughly 315,000lbs at MGTW vs ~155,000lvs for a C-130J. It was designed for air forces without dedicated strategic airlift, to fulfill the role of both tactical transport, and strategic asset. Time will tell if they were successful. As an absolute, yes, the A400 is a more capable aircraft. But I get the sneaking suspicion that you could buy three C-130Js for what it costs to get an A400 parked on your ramp. Or you could get one C-17 for what an A400 will cost.
ETA: Based on the all powerful Wiki's numbers you are correct. Three 130Js for the price of an A400, and you'd have about six million left over to run them for a while. C130J = $62 million A400 = $136 million little people dollars So you'd get roughly 2 130J's and some change, not 3. Unit cost approx. €136 million 136 million Euros = 192.3448 million U.S. dollars Damn, little people dollars are creeping up. Some of my best performing investments the last few years have been the extra funny money I've brought home over the years. Give some to me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:22:41 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. You're curious if they will put guns on them
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:24:25 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. I'm trying. Off to my bear hunt in about 15 minutes. I'll be in communicado till Saturday (which is drill )
Fight the good fight for me. Saying things like that only reinforces the general perception that I'm your sock puppet. Be safe. ETA: If you trip over a rock and the ANG/USAF has to personnel recover your ass, I will be sitting on the ramp at Elmendorf to laugh my ass off. You are the Mr. Hat to Sylvans Mr. Garrison???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:24:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some of my best performing investments the last few years have been the extra funny money I've brought home over the years. Give some to me. That sounds like a terrible investment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:31:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some of my best performing investments the last few years have been the extra funny money I've brought home over the years. Give some to me. That sounds like a terrible investment.
I will quadruple your investment within 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:31:21 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
The Airbus looks like a C17 with props. You don't expect scarebus to come with an original design do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:39:16 AM EDT
[#40]
The 400 will be a decent seller. It allow a lot of countries an option to buy airlift capability without becoming a US/Russia client-state.
Arctic (specifically Antarctic) performance was a major parameter. I also will point out the C-5 flights to the Antarctic. CASAs relationship with EADS is why the 400 isn't the size of a 212/232/-27. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:41:13 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Airbus looks like a C17 with props. You don't expect scarebus to come with an original design do you? Oh, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:41:34 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. I'm trying. Off to my bear hunt in about 15 minutes. I'll be in communicado till Saturday (which is drill )
Fight the good fight for me. Saying things like that only reinforces the general perception that I'm your sock puppet. Be safe. ETA: If you trip over a rock and the ANG/USAF has to personnel recover your ass, I will be sitting on the ramp at Elmendorf to laugh my ass off. You are the Mr. Hat to Sylvans Mr. Garrison???? Or so the completely baseless argument was made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:52:58 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
The 400 will be a decent seller. It allow a lot of countries an option to buy airlift capability without becoming a US/Russia client-state. Arctic (specifically Antarctic) performance was a major parameter. I also will point out the C-5 flights to the Antarctic. CASAs relationship with EADS is why the 400 isn't the size of a 212/232/-27. My assessment follows... Only if they can get it to work, with the massively complex prop transmission tied to a massively powerful, completely newly designed engine being the first among many problems. The engine has had to get bigger, to make the performance parameters, which has created weight issues, as other aircraft components need to account for the added weight. The A400 has a weight problem, but the engines are reaching their design limits. So, you get this jalopy to eventually work, and there is no surge or scalability in the design left. You used it all up to get off the ground. Airbus would have been better off growing the C-27J/C295 designs than attempting to go new build. Regarding polar operations, I would have considerable reservations about ground icing, for starters. The outboard props are less than 6 feet off the ground, IIRC. Props, the faster and thinner they are, become increasingly susceptible to blade icing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 9:58:13 AM EDT
[#44]
The Herks will be flying when our grandkids are dead and gone...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:24:42 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 400 will be a decent seller. It allow a lot of countries an option to buy airlift capability without becoming a US/Russia client-state. Arctic (specifically Antarctic) performance was a major parameter. I also will point out the C-5 flights to the Antarctic. CASAs relationship with EADS is why the 400 isn't the size of a 212/232/-27. My assessment follows... Only if they can get it to work, with the massively complex prop transmission tied to a massively powerful, completely newly designed engine being the first among many problems. The engine has had to get bigger, to make the performance parameters, which has created weight issues, as other aircraft components need to account for the added weight. The A400 has a weight problem, but the engines are reaching their design limits. So, you get this jalopy to eventually work, and there is no surge or scalability in the design left. You used it all up to get off the ground. Airbus would have been better off growing the C-27J/C295 designs than attempting to go new build. Regarding polar operations, I would have considerable reservations about ground icing, for starters. The outboard props are less than 6 feet off the ground, IIRC. Props, the faster and thinner they are, become increasingly susceptible to blade icing. All good points. The polar ops are part of the design parameters, for obvious reasons. Whether they are being met or not, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:25:10 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are the Mr. Hat to Sylvans Mr. Garrison???? Or so the completely baseless argument was made. You two aren't the same person? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:37:26 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. I'm trying. Off to my bear hunt in about 15 minutes. I'll be in communicado till Saturday (which is drill )
Fight the good fight for me. Saying things like that only reinforces the general perception that I'm your sock puppet. Be safe. ETA: If you trip over a rock and the ANG/USAF has to personnel recover your ass, I will be sitting on the ramp at Elmendorf to laugh my ass off. You are the Mr. Hat to Sylvans Mr. Garrison???? Or so the completely baseless argument was made. But wait, that means you are evil and Sylvan is gay right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:43:07 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
27s?
I actually fix C-130J's. Great aircraft, great capabilities. My unit is actually losing C-130J's to go to even smaller aircarft. Some of the FOB's have such small airfields that even C-130's have trouble landing there. so no, I don't think the A400M would do a better job when the 130J is already on the large side...... I'll be curious what the AF does with those. That's a really charitable way of putting it. I'm trying. Off to my bear hunt in about 15 minutes. I'll be in communicado till Saturday (which is drill )
Fight the good fight for me. Saying things like that only reinforces the general perception that I'm your sock puppet. Be safe. ETA: If you trip over a rock and the ANG/USAF has to personnel recover your ass, I will be sitting on the ramp at Elmendorf to laugh my ass off. You are the Mr. Hat to Sylvans Mr. Garrison???? Or so the completely baseless argument was made. But wait, that means you are evil and Sylvan is gay right? Regarding the evil part, that is not for me to determine. I have it on good evidence that he and I, or we, are, have been, and will continue to be, strenuously heterosexual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:43:57 AM EDT
[#49]
I'll take the one with the fancy propellers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 10:44:47 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Regarding the evil part, that is not for me to determine. I have it on good evidence that he and I, or we, are, have been, and will continue to be, strenuously heterosexual. Oh good, I have a job.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
