Hi /k/,
First time posting here so excuse lack of rule knowledge. I'd like to gauge whether there are some of you that show interest in the Airbus A400M program.
I would be interested in your opinions concerning its capabilities and usefulness in a potential Iraq/Syria mission against ISIS.
I would mostly be interested in an RAF operation, taking into account British military equipment.
Open discussion
>>30643578
It occupies weird middle ground. It can definitely carry more than a C-130, even a J, but it lacks the payload capacity to be a truly strategic airlifter (it can't transport tanks).
>>30643629
It can transport one heavy tank
Will be a great asset to the RAF, when the program gets on track.
>>30643665
It cannot carry a modern MBT with a lift capacity of only ~40 tons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DcMvGAFtRE
The A-400M is already used in RAF operations against ISIS
>>30643629
Payload is not what makes an aircraft strategic vs tactical. It's range.
>>30643665
No it can't.
>>30646349
Will it though? The RAF already had Super Hercs and C-17s. So what's the point in these for them?
>>30646662
Because it can lift what a Herc can't lift to where a C-17 can't land.
>>30646671
Where are A400M's landing that C17's can't?
>>30646651
No, it's payload in conjunction with range.
>>30643578
Vehicles have outgrown the C130 and C17 is out of production.
It's what we have or rather all that we will be getting.
>>30646662
More transport aircraft, the UK wants at least 22. Remember that C-17's are out of production and the UK only has 8.
>>30646671
That doesn't make it not niche.
>>30646696
They could have ordered more a while back. There was never a hard cap on production numbers or timeline.
>>30646687
No it's not. It's intratheater vs. intertheater.
Once again payload has nothing to fucking do with it.
>>30646683
Sorry I didn't realize every possible landing strip in the world was pre-planned.
>>30646707
The UK did not want more then.
>>30646716
If you think you are landing a plane full of cargo on a beach strip you are out of your fucking mind.
Other than that, you can put a C17 anywhere an A400M is landing.
>>30646713
It absolutely does. Stop deluding yourself.
The C-130J has slightly more range at max payload than the A400M does at max payload (2,071 miles vs 2,051 miles). So you're arguing that the Super Herc is a strategic airlifter
>>30646738
Given the increased landing distance and takeoff range, you literally can't.
>>30646730
That's not at all moving the goalposts. Don't use terms you don't understand.
>>30646738
>If you think you are landing a plane full of cargo on a beach strip you are out of your fucking mind.
Even Top Gear went there. :)
>>30646756
No I am not because you are not using C-130s and A400M's to airlift cargo across oceans and continents which is the point of strategic airlift.
Tactical airlift moves cargo within theater. Look at Afghanistan. US strategic airlift like C-5's and C-17s and move it from US to Germany to the middle east hubs like Bagram. There it goes on tactical airlift like C-17s and A400M's to go out to the FOB's.
If you don't like my explanation feel free to argue against everyone in the airlift community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift#Strategic_airlift
>>30646772
>full of cargo
>anywhere near max ACL
>landing on a beach
>>30646775
So why did you implicitly switch from calling the A400M a strategic airlifter to calling it a tactical airlifter?
>>30646775
He said the A400 isn't strategic and that link backs up that statement... so... yeah...
>>30646766
>why x?
reason why x
>that doesn't count because of y!
>>30646792
I think you meant C-17 and C-17 can perform both tactical and strategic airlift capabilities. You can use C-17's for long haul operations in heavy entertainment as well as land it on dirt strips like a tactical aircraft (and deliver paratroopers/aerial drops).
Air lift is a meme
What are you possibly transporting that needs to be there in 24 hours, as opposed to however long it takes for a ship + trucks + rail to arrive?
>>30646799
How does that link back that up?
You aren't sending A400M's full of cargo across the Atlantic like a strategic airlifter.
>>30646815
Literally what?
>>30646817
Stuff to landlocked countries such as Afghanistan when Pakistan shut off access route.
Anyone that's ever been to Iraq and Afghanistan (unless they were on a MEU, they didn't arrive by boat).
If airlift is a meme why do militarys invest so much in it?
>>30646826
It literally says the A400M is a tactical airlifter.
Are you not understand what has been stated here?
>>30646829
sustainment autocorrected to entertainment. Do you care to attack my argument or break down the non-important shit?
>>30646842
I am an arguing that the A400M is not a strategic airlifter you fucking halfwit. You target the wrong person. Follow the chain to see how wrong you are.
>>30646840
>If airlift is a meme why do militarys invest so much in it?
Because budgets are set by politicians and they are subsidizing their domestic aircraft industry
>>30646847
Listen you fucking cunt piece of shit. Your statement made no sense. Hence you got a response clearly indicating a lack of understanding of what you were saying. Not that fucking difficult to grasp, dick.
>>30646864
That's a terrible argument. That's like saying tanks are shit because politicians refuse to stop shitting out M1A1's.
>>30646858
Nobody ever claim it was a strategic airlift you illiterate.
>>30646864
>MIC boogeyman
Note the lack of response to reasons given for airlift.
>>30646873
I was the one arguing the A400M was the tactical airlifter the whole time you stupid piece of shit. You are the one that jumped on the wrong person. I can't help that I know what I am talking about. It's literally my job.
>>30646883
New M1A1's haven't been made for 20 years.
>>30646858
You want to point out to us where anyone argued that the A400M is a strategic airlifter? Seems to me that you're arguing against an invented point.
>>30646889
There was no reason for the US to be in afghanistan, there was no reason for the US to antagonize pakistan, and there was no reason why they couldn't ship through any of the other bordering countries.
>>30646883
Tanks have military use
Cargo planes do not
>>30646897
You obviously can't read what has been said in this thread. You're arguing with yourself in response to a point that was never made.
>>30646887
Not quite.
>>30643629
>>30646687
>>30646756
It's over I have won. You can kill yourself now.
>>30646909
>argument based on feelings
>>30646909
> There was no reason for the US to be in afghanistan,
Wrong
>there was no reason for the US to antagonize pakistan,
Wrong
>and there was no reason why they couldn't ship through any of the other bordering countries.
Wrong
0-for-3 there slugger.
>>30646916
You have no idea what's happening do you?
>>30646920
The argument you're having with yourself about things that were never said is over? Great.
Now fuck off and leave the adults to talk.
>>30646937
This is embarrassing for you.
>>30646909
>Tanks shipped on airlift to fight in a landlocked country
>>30646941
>>30646954
samefagging hard with teh b8
>>30646968
Still waiting on you to make a factual statement about the arguments in this thread. The FACT remains that you argued about something that nobody ever once disagreed with, before or after.
>>30647016
Do you even know what you are arguing about?
You have derailed so far off your original statement you don't even know your position anymore.
>>30646651
Specifically define the range cutoff at maximum payload then.
>>30647071
Specifically show me anywhere that says tactical vs strategic airlift depends on payload and not range.
>>30647045
Your statement that payload is irrelevant was, is, and always will be false. Even textbook tactical airlifters can be made to carry cargo over typically strategic airlifter distances by simply reducing the payload the appropriate amount below the maximum, which is precisely why range is not the singular defining characteristic of strategic airlift.
>>30646935
I am right on all 3
>>30647082
It's inherent to the design of airlifter airframes. There's no overlap in the venn diagram among active aircraft unless you consider the A400M a single nexus point. Otherwise, they are entirely separate.
>>30647096
>have to decrease the payload to increase range to even think about calling it a strategic airlift
>strategic air doesn't have this
I don't know why at some point you decide you get to come up with what makes an aircraft tactical vs strategic, however many greater minds have already determined this and have already proven you wrong, many years before you were even born. A C-5 can land at a FOB in theater...does that make it a tactical airlift? No, and same with your bullshit argument. You are grasping for straws that aren't there. You cannot find one source that says a C-130 is a strategic airlifter simply because it can move cargo in a strategic setting yet I can find dozens of sources that says it's a tactical airlifter.
Well I think this argument is over ladies and gents.
>>30647124
You're egregiously wrong in so many ways.
>>30646961
land locked
aka you can drive to it by land
It's not air locked, where would you need a plane to get there
>>30647140
strategic vs tactical is a doctrinal thing, unrelated to the aircraft itself
One mans strategic airlifter is another mans tactical airlifter
>>30647140
You are intentionally ignoring every single thing said here. Nobody ever claimed the C-130 actually is a strategic airlifter. The only point made in relation to it is that it can meet the range of actual strategic airlifters when its payload is reduced, illustrating that range (again) is not the only factor to consider.
I have absolutely no idea why this is so hard for you to grasp.
>>30647140
Nobody said the C-130 is strategic. Try rereading the thread.
>>30647163
Yes, landlocked as in sealocked. And sometimes you land routes are hostile filled with IED's, like Afghanistan you fucking retarded. Safest and best way to get important cargo in country is by air you daft fucking muppet.
And they don't build aircraft based on doctrine at the time. Strategic and tactical airlift are made exactly for that. You don't make an aircraft to that specializes in austere landings to do long haul routes over and over again across the Atlantic. You save that for aircraft designed to carry more with better fuel efficiency. You also don't design aircraft meant to haul max ACL and a retarded amount of tonnage to land on a dirt strip in Afshitistan.
Weekends on /k/ are the worst.
Well this has gone off track.
What I will say is that UK Forces are already struggling, finding aircraft for training and exercises is already difficult and rarely to schedule, has to be booked way in advance which means a vanguard force like 16 Air Assault Birgade is really in the shit with it, as they obviously rely very heavily on aircraft, and are expected to be on a state of high readiness almost all the time.
I won't lie, I don't know much about the A400M specifically, so can't contribute much to the thread, but from what I've seen its pretty good, I only hope we can purchase enough to satisfy our needs, rather than enough to satisfy our immediate needs, and overlooking the bigger picture in favour of cost-saving,
>>30647183
You are the one stuck on payloads as a matter of airlift category, as opposed to range. Idiot.
>>30647082
A C-17 (which everyone agrees is a strategic airlifter) can fly 2,785 miles at about its maximum payload.
A C-130J-30 (which everyone agrees is a tactical airlifter) can fly 2,417 miles at about its maximum payload.
That means that either the strategic/tactical airlifter range cutoff is a fine line somewhere between those two numbers OR that range isn't the only factor that affects how to think about airlifting capabilities.
>>30647238
Another comparison. Swap out the C-17 for the Il-76M/T (which everyone also agrees is a strategic airlifter), which can fly 2,485 miles at roughly its maximum payload.
>>30647238
First where are you getting these numbers
Next C-17 is well known to be both a tactical/strategic mix.
>>30647264
IL-76 is also known to be a mix of strategic/tactical.
Literally down the line. Two terrible examples.
>>30647279
Those numbers came directly from Boeing and Lockheed.
This thread, this fucking thread right here, is the reason why I legitimately believe /k/ is shit, is full of shit, and is 95% autist fucks. By 6 posts in, this thread has been made completely FUBAR all because of an argument over fucking semantics between a cluster of wailing NEETs that think that playing RTS games and having a subscription to Jane's makes them the official judge on military terminology, doctrine, effectiveness, and technical specifications. I feel really fucking bad for this OP because he had a legitimate interest in a topic /k/ SHOULD be helpful about and was a first-time poster expecting useful insight but instead he gets all of you babbling mongoloids arguing about the most trivial bullshit even remotely related to the original topic.
Fuck all of you, I really don't know why I come here anymore.
>>30647288
The C-17 and IL-76 are both PRIMARILY considered strategic airlifters. Of fucking course they can act as tactical airlifters by remaining in theater, reducing payload, landing on short fields, etc. That doesn't mean their peak capabilities aren't squarely in the strategic airlift domain.
You're serious having the square vs rectangle argument.
All squares are also rectangles. But not all rectangles are squares.
>>30647194
If your occupation force can't even secure roads to prevent IED attacks
How do you expect to win this war?
>>30647296
OP's question was answered or addressed pretty much immediately. What happens after that doesn't matter.
Tactical is defined by having props
Strategic is defined by jet
>>30647296
You're not the /k/ poster we deserve.
But you're the /k/ poster we need.
>>30647319
You're unspeakably stupid. Kill yourself.
>>30647318
>primarily
Oh here we go again, you are in charge of determining capability apparently.
>>30647319
What planet are you on?
>>30647345
That's not true. See the:
An-72
KC-390
Il-214
C-2
>>30647351
Cut back trees/vegetation
Put thick grates blocking culverts
destroy walls or buildings too close to roads
Monitor & vet road crews, and have troops with them
This sort of stuff isn't impossible, and if it can't be done then you are wasting your time/money in the first place.
Not that the US should be doing this occupation bullshit at all anyways.
>>30647354
Nigger, are you fucking serious? You are directly contradicting your own fucking statements.
A bunch of strategic airlifters can act as tactical airlifters. No tactical airlifter can act as a strategic airlifter (unless you buy Airbus' line about the A400M having strategic capabilities).
This is not complex.
>>30647296
It comes with the territory, /k/ has a serious deficiency in international posters and so any non-US military discussion is typically lacking.
>>30647354
So you obviously decided to ignore the squares and rectangles analogy.
>>30647404
That's irrelevant. Sitting behind a computer in Europe doesn't give you special insight into a European plane more than sitting behind a computer in the US does and vice versa.
>>30647354
A Land Rover has significant off-roading capabilities. It can also do just fine driving around town. Does that mean it's not still a SUV designed to be able to off-road?
>>30647439
Not inherently, but it certainly makes it more likely.
So lets take myself as an example, I'm a British poster and because of this I'm somewhat in a better position to know the British defencesphere than an American and vice versa.
>>30647530
> somewhat
Maybe by like 1%. It really makes no material difference.
>>30647530
OP's question was answered early on by non bong posters, the fact that afterwards a few autists are arguing over what tactical/strategic airlift means has little relevance.
>>30647540
>material difference
Listen, I think you are trying to pick a fight, whatever mate. If you think nationality plays no part in understand that nation's armed forces you are very wrong.
>>30647571
>OP's question was answered early on by non bong posters
>>30646349 was me, you don't know who is who on this board, so don't presume.
>>30647610
If you think you have special inside knowledge of a European aircraft that you had absolutely no hand in creating and learned about exclusively on the internet, then you're strait up fucking wrong.
Unless you are inside the industry and have access to non-disclosable details, there isn't a single fucking thing you can learn about it that anyone else with an internet connection can't.
>>30647610
>was me, you don't know who is who on this board, so don't presume.
And you were not the first anon to answer the OP now were you.
>>30647610
If you think you can access information on the internet that the rest of us can't, you're very wrong.
Are you in the military or do work as a civilian at a defense contractor? If not, then stop your yammering.
>>30647610
Tell us all about your top secret clearance.
>>30647671
>If you think you have special inside knowledge of a European aircraft that you had absolutely no hand in creating and learned about exclusively on the internet, then you're strait up fucking wrong.
Never claimed this.
>>30647701
>If you think you can access information on the internet that the rest of us can't, you're very wrong.
Again, never claimed this.
You are all misunderstanding me. Because of my nationality it makes it easy to get obscure information (knowing the niche sites) or shop talk (knowing the people) for what's going on within my nation's armed forces. Same with anyone from any nation.
Perfect example, long before it was publicly released, I had know about problems with the Type 45 engines, in fact everyone within the defence community knew, but it was an open secret that wasn't discussed or publicised.
>>30647805
You're just admitting to exactly what you just argued like a fucking cunt against. Congratulations.
>>30647805
> Never claimed this.
Yes, you absolutely did.
>>30647835
Mate you've decided to project whatever you think I'm saying. If you don't get what I'm saying that's fine.
>>30647856
Nope, read it.
I'm saying it certainly makes it easier to do so, not that I know so.
>>30647871
You're insanely disingenuous, not to mention delusional. Once again, there is nothing you have access to that everyone else doesn't through a few minutes of Googling. One one and ONLY difference is that you might be able to find material a little bit faster, but it's still the same material.
>>30647924
Like I said, you aren't getting what I'm say that's fine.
I am *not* saying that nationality alone gives you a total insight into kit or its program, but coupled with an actual interest in defence? It certainly can help, because you are more likely to know *which* exact sites because someone with an interest in defence is likely to learn or know the meta of the defencesphere.
I hate going >muh nintendo dad
but growing up in a certain nation, makes you more likely to have contacts *within* that nation's defencesphere, do you see what I'm say?
fucking make comment supporting that post and it gets thrown straight back in my face just because someone wants a fucking shitfling match god forbid
>>30647394
>Do this all the way from Germany
