Airbus A400M Atlas, concepts and other roles

[kitnut617]

And we need some decals for our A400M's ---

[PR19_Kit]

First flight of ZM400, the RAF's first Atlas:

And not before time either!

Actually it is from what I recall, we weren't scheduled to start getting them till mid 2015, but the Turks had a funny moment and asked their production to be put back so the RAF were asked if they would like one of theirs earlier. So it is actually before its scheduled time 

Anyway nice to see it in RAF colours 

It depends which 'schedule' we're talking about. It's certainly before the CURRENT scheduled time, but Airbus Mil have moved the goalposts at least twice since it was announced.

[Captain Canada]

Looks great ! What's the plan for the C-130J when you get all the A-400s ?

[PR19_Kit]

AFAIK they're keeping all of them, the A400Ms being a sort of 'half way house' to the C-17 fleet.

[Captain Canada]

Good. Love them new Hercs !

[McColm]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

[sandiego89]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

And a shortsided move in my opionion.  The lawyers on the other tanker contract seemed to have the upper hand, and the RAF got "hosed" (pun-intended).  Having the option to pass fuel from the RAF A-400 would have been a nice force multiplyer.   

[PR19_Kit]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

And a shortsided move in my opionion.  The lawyers on the other tanker contract seemed to have the upper hand, and the RAF got "hosed" (pun-intended).  Having the option to pass fuel from the RAF A-400 would have been a nice force multiplyer.   

I agree, specially when the 'tanker option' is the standard build. How much do you bet we'll have to fork out extra to have the option re-installed in 15 yrs or so? And it'll be presented as a 'Wizard Idea' no doubt......

[kitnut617]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

And a shortsided move in my opionion.  The lawyers on the other tanker contract seemed to have the upper hand, and the RAF got "hosed" (pun-intended).  Having the option to pass fuel from the RAF A-400 would have been a nice force multiplyer.   

I agree, specially when the 'tanker option' is the standard build. How much do you bet we'll have to fork out extra to have the option re-installed in 15 yrs or so? And it'll be presented as a 'Wizard Idea' no doubt......

Pretty much the same with that whacking great big floating airfield you've got, you know -- the one without wire arresting capabilities (or catobar)

[McColm]

Or those refurbished RC-135s without any refueling probes fitted and the boom plug disconnected.

[PR19_Kit]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

And a shortsided move in my opionion.  The lawyers on the other tanker contract seemed to have the upper hand, and the RAF got "hosed" (pun-intended).  Having the option to pass fuel from the RAF A-400 would have been a nice force multiplyer.   

I agree, specially when the 'tanker option' is the standard build. How much do you bet we'll have to fork out extra to have the option re-installed in 15 yrs or so? And it'll be presented as a 'Wizard Idea' no doubt......

Pretty much the same with that whacking great big floating airfield you've got, you know -- the one without wire arresting capabilities (or catobar)

It has got catobar capability, it's just that the structural work needed for it is hidden under the ski-jump just now. It'll cost a lot to install the EMALS system later of course, but it'll cost less than if they'd made no provision for it at all.

[GeorgeC]

Looks great ! What's the plan for the C-130J when you get all the A-400s ?

The A400Ms will replace the C130Js pretty much one for one.

[PR19_Kit]

Looks great ! What's the plan for the C-130J when you get all the A-400s ?

The A400Ms will replace the C130Js pretty much one for one.

As the RAF currently has 38 x C-130Js and it has 22 x A400Ms on order that'll be pretty difficult.

[kitnut617]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

And a shortsided move in my opionion.  The lawyers on the other tanker contract seemed to have the upper hand, and the RAF got "hosed" (pun-intended).  Having the option to pass fuel from the RAF A-400 would have been a nice force multiplyer.   

I agree, specially when the 'tanker option' is the standard build. How much do you bet we'll have to fork out extra to have the option re-installed in 15 yrs or so? And it'll be presented as a 'Wizard Idea' no doubt......

Pretty much the same with that whacking great big floating airfield you've got, you know -- the one without wire arresting capabilities (or catobar)

It has got catobar capability, it's just that the structural work needed for it is hidden under the ski-jump just now. It'll cost a lot to install the EMALS system later of course, but it'll cost less than if they'd made no provision for it at all.

I think that being only able to take vertical landing aircraft is very shortsighted, no matter what the expense is, restricts what can use what will be the second biggest aircraft carrier floating ---

[PR19_Kit]

Isn't there two types of Atlas? The RAF doesn't have the internal inflight refueling system fitted, whilst the rest of them has this fitted as standard.

And a shortsided move in my opionion.  The lawyers on the other tanker contract seemed to have the upper hand, and the RAF got "hosed" (pun-intended).  Having the option to pass fuel from the RAF A-400 would have been a nice force multiplyer.   

I agree, specially when the 'tanker option' is the standard build. How much do you bet we'll have to fork out extra to have the option re-installed in 15 yrs or so? And it'll be presented as a 'Wizard Idea' no doubt......

Pretty much the same with that whacking great big floating airfield you've got, you know -- the one without wire arresting capabilities (or catobar)

It has got catobar capability, it's just that the structural work needed for it is hidden under the ski-jump just now. It'll cost a lot to install the EMALS system later of course, but it'll cost less than if they'd made no provision for it at all.

I think that being only able to take vertical landing aircraft is very shortsighted, no matter what the expense is, restricts what can use what will be the second biggest aircraft carrier floating ---

You're assuming that there is some logical thought capability within the UK Ministry of Defence Robert.