Can take things a C-130 can't to places a C-17 can't. There is a lot of confusion about why the A400M is so hyped just because it can carry a few more tons than the C-130. Fact is, it's not about these few tons, it's about what these few tons enable the A400M to carry. Yes, it fills a niche. But that niche is the most important niche there is. Because these few tons bring it into a cargo weight class that most modern armored fighting vehicles are in. The German and British Armies are/will be heavily Boxer MRAV based, in countless versions from IFV to recovery, bridgelayer and even fully automated 155 mm artillery, and all of them can fit into a A400M. Even a Puma IFV can fit into a A400M after taking off some of its modular armor and mounting it back on after landing. That way one can get a full blown 43 ton IFV to places others can only get armored trucks to, and i don't think anyone needs explanation of the difference in lethality and survivability between the best armored IFV in service and an armored truck. It's not about the plane, it's about what it enables.
Blah blah blah. It’s importance is that it’s designed and built in Europe. Keeping that capability alive and in-house is 90% of the benefit over the US airlift platforms. It’s a fine aircraft.
A few days ago Italy confirmed the sale of 4 C-130Js for Sweden plus 2 options. The Italian Air Force wants to replace its C-130Js with the Airbus A400M or the C-2 Kawasaki but the A400M presents various problems (reason why Italy abandoned the A400M project years ago) so we are focusing more on the Kawasaki C-2 which has similar performance and only needs an runway of 500 meters with a load of 24 tons (compared to 700 meters of the A400M). Has Airbus solved the problems of the past?
@@CorePathway Make up your mind. Is it a fine aircraft or is the only thing that counts where it is built? What if it was a shitty aircraft, would you still enjoy a 90% benefit!
Its about time a strategic airlifted not built in America gets some love. That is not taking anything away from all the American ones they are great too.
The Airbus A400 was not built as a replacement for the C-130 Hercules. The A400 is much bigger. It is supposed to be a platform between C-130 Hercules and the C-17 in size.
no, it really won't, this thing is fragile, temperamental, hard to repair and needs constant servicing. It's replacing something you can pepper with bullet holes and fix with a hammer and a tin of beans. They wanted a flying truck and they got a luxury SUV.
@@tdrewman oh she's beautiful, and when she works she's amazing. She just isn't really what was wanted. They built a high performance machine full of new tech when they wanted robust and rugged
Had it been more affordable Portugal would probably have gladly gone for the A-400 instead off the lighter and cheaper KC-390. But we ordered five of them, the same number of C-130s we operate. How many A-400s would we have been able to buy with the same funds? Possibly just one, two at the very most. And the KC-390 seems to be a pretty fine aircraft and probably will have a great success in the future. Efficient and affordable. Besides, EMBRAER already have facilities in Portugal.
Its also about keeping Strategic Tech and Assets in Europe. What you safe now on money, you may pay double or more in future. Like if China invades Taiwan, its over with cheap Computer Chips for us all. Or us naive Germans with cheap Russian gas 🤣 making the lesson right now. Of course i do not assume that happens to Brazil and the facilities are in Portugal. However i guess you get what i mean. Peace to Portugal from Germany!
To my knowledge the A400M is not replacing the C-130 but only the C-160. Germany and France purchased C-130J long after they bought the A400M because it cannot operate on airfields without the necessary equipment
A400 performed better than expected and can fill the role of the C130 so having one craft (even if the perchance cost is more expensive) makes running costs and logistics much more simpler. Also note it's not a force replacement but refit replacement (meaning when frames of old craft are done with, they'll use the 400)
@@ratchet2505 The A400 is a failure for airbus. With only 178 on order, airbus failed to break even. Since you can buy 2 c130j for the price of 1 A400, everybody is buying c130j.
@@fernarias A400 is a gold-covered solution. We will see, how much the cost of ownership is over the years. Airbus had the bad luck, that war in Ukraine was not forseeable at the time of the deployment. Now, they would sell some more of them. Europe needed a war to change military policies, investments ...
That's perfectly correct except that the A400M is indeed capable of operating from airfields without necessary equipment. The A400M is just too big for some missions.
@@fernarias Come back in 40 years and *then* compare sales! For a lot of air forces even the C130 is more than they can afford to buy and operate, so obviously the A400M is going to be further limited in sales potential, but while greater sales would have been preferred the specification requirements of the sponsoring countries took priority over sales. I was at RIAT at RAF Fairford back in the 80's when interested parties held a meeting to discuss "Future Large Aircraft" requirements. The design Centre for A400M was centred at Airbus facility at Filton near Bristol in the UK.
The A400M was not designed to replace the C-130 since neither Germany nor France used it. It was designed to replace the Transall C-160. In fact, replacing the fleet of both countries implied a mix of A400M and 3 C-130J operated together by France and Germany
Admin forgot one country, Malaysia. Royal Malaysian Air Force are the first Asian country operate and one of the first customer buying 4 of this plane.
You mixed up the direction of rotation for the propellers. It's defined as seen from behind so the propeller most to the right in the video (seen from the front) is actually the furthest left prop (no. 1) and spins clockwise. I think most people know that is the left wing even if it's to the right seen from the front.
Indeed every airforce that once the a400m has problems with the engine. The prop brake isn't working. And the dowl bolts (the bolts that connect the prop to the power gear box) need to be inspected every 50 to 100 flight hours. That will put the aircraft in a lot of down time. The un prepared landings destroys almost every antenna and the tyres are not designed to really land on un prepared runways.
@@Deadkiller-xl2fs exactly, that's why I think the UK is being shortsighted in retiring its fleet of C-130s as these have been proven in theatre many many times and and are still up to date. SF prefer these to the A-400 as they are better suited to the role they need....I know it's all about reducing costs but better thinking is needed, especially with what's currently going on around the world.
Cool plane I guess. My contribution to the band wagon --> Because the flight deck is all the way forward there's more room for cargo? I paraphrase of course but damn, where else does a flight deck go?
this video is ON POINT! 😎😁Dispite what others say, Sometimes my dad, who is a ret. Enlisted Air Force reserve vet more than 17 years, will actually say, "I helped fly C- One hundred thirties" haha 😆😆🛫
Development itself is a problem solving process. Especially when you’re tasked to do something new, huge problems are to be expected. I think this was the first ever turboprop aircraft designed by Airbus.
You're right about that. They talk big about performance, airlifting, props but not one single word about the engines. Who makes them? How many SHP? Counter rotating gearbox now thats a big job and many problems i can see. Its a pity they can't even see that nor mention it.
It's a compromised aircraft as stated. The C-17 can airdrop almost everything in the US military inventory. The C-17 can carry the M1Abrams tank which is what is was designed for.
But the C-130 cannot load a Stryker whereas the A400M can load one in full kit mode. No one denies the C-17 can lift more but it cannot go where an A400M (or C-130) can go.
@@sparty94 Oooh I see. Someone calls you out for saying something stupid and you get defensive. Keep at it. You can keep using the party line over and over.
@@cwg73160 You didn’t call him out, you confirmed his statement by showing it is basically a logic tautology. Because the newest aircraft is always state of the art. Then you got rude and insulting.
Any 400M Loadmasters out there? I was a Crew Chief on F-4s.. I always wished i would have chosen Load Master... I told my son that was my dream job when i was his age... Is it ok on the 400M??? As he is a good candidate to become one...
Having been a mover, the C-17 is a fantastic aircraft that can get in most places the C-130 was used for. I will concede that the A400 bests the C-130J in many areas aside from the most obvious: purchase price and tight budget space. Notwithstanding that C-17s are no longer in production, choosing one over the other is a matter of politics and geopolitics, not capability. While the RAF is on the fence, the EU buy Airbus and have minimal global interests requiring SAL. The US and Commonwealth all use the C-17 because everything is far away. Compared to the A400, the C-17 is faster, using less hours/YFR, and holds twice as much. This means a C-17 fleet can deploy a task force in 40% of the hours. Also, considering that hourly fleet costs are almost identical when factoring aircrew size, salaries, training, on-ground footprint, spares, maintenance, amortization/interest rates; fuel being the only item that slightly adds to a fleet’s total hourly cost. But usually you don’t deploy a task force to a dirt/short field, so if sealift is not an option and if you have a 10,000’ runway to deploy to, a single 747 holds 48 pallets, while the C-5 holds 32 (or maybe it’s 36?)… 18 for the C-17, 8 for C-130J and maybe effectively 10 for the A400, which uses different pallets. It’s worth noting that the C-17 usually “bulks out” first, meaning it runs out of space before getting overweight. This is good if you have something dense like armor or bombs and you can still fill the floor space with something light and bulky or passengers. Basically the A400 is like a wider C-130J but it is not in the same ball park as the C-17 for doing a large and fast deployment. If the A400 is your biggest SAL asset, you will be reliant on sea or rail… or the piggy backing with the USAF for anything major.
in germany and france, the main users of the a 400m its replacing the c 160 transall, also germany and france just bought c 130s like 3 years ago and they now get delivered
@@jonasbrock3959 hmm..... But I think the Atlas will find more market in both Europe and the rest of the world in the coming years....The British for example, are going to replace their entire C 130 fleet with A-400m by 2030.....
@@jonasbrock3959 C130 is smaller, which some times isn´t a bad thing. Therefore it still has a place as it is a very good lifter. Both are complementary for carrying different cargo to various places.
It's a c130 not a C one hundred and thirty. I literally have a 400m flying over my house right now as I type this up. Had these over head for the past 2 days playing war games with all sorts like the f15, typhoons, p8, t1, some stratotankers and euro figjters.
Would never be a fair comparison. A plane like the C130 is well established and has a lot of customers, that is a huge cost benefit. Like the comparison between F-35A and Eurofighter, 85m vs 120m. And people are still saying the F-35 is too expensive, such comparisons are never fair without an hour long explanation of factors that determine costs and quickly outdated when some factors change.
Lots of talk. Why not the crucial. Comparison of cost, power, range, payload, fuel economy, cruising altitude & speed. And max altitude & speed all comoaredvtocthe C130.. The rest is mainly trivia.
You are comparing or at least make it appear like if the A400M was an european response to the C-130. When the A400M Is the replacement plane for the Franco-German C-160. The C-130 is not comparable to the A400M. Lot of nations who have A400M also use C-130 when they need smaller planes.
I not a native english speaking one but i find it interesting that some people here are... well... complaining about the pronunciation of "C-One-Hundred-Thirty" instead of "C-One-Thirty" but on the other hand did not complain of the pronunciation of "Mari-time Patrol" instead of "Maritim Patrol" @0:59.
If only it wasn’t so loud. Low detectability 😂😂Have a regular high flight over my house round about 30000 and you certainly can hear it coming and going. It makes a right racket.
A400 is very cool, but it's expensive. It's going to be a great aircraft for some militaries, not really useful for others. For strategic use, it's reasonable across a smaller theater like inside Western Europe. Being able to carry a modern IFV in a tactical sense is also pretty cool. It's somewhat narrow though in terms of where you would need this over a C-130 or C-160 but not prefer a C-17, C-5, or some other airlifter.
Say you're the French and want to get some quick forces into Northern Africa or the middle East. Enough places there where you won't have perfect airfields. It would also have been pointless to reproduce already existing capabilities.
@@bcfuerst Oh, I understand that for certain countries in certain theaters, it's excellent. It's just a thin margin where it becomes preferable to other options. Only a few countries want or need to rapidly move troops to improvised airfields on a regular basis. Only a few countries out of those need something bigger than a C-130 and also wont use a jet-engine strategic airlifter landing further away in most of those scenarios. It's great for getting larger vehicles deployed closer to where you need them, but this already assumes or implies total air control and little to no ability by the enemy to interdict with SAM or AAA assets.
The most important for us europeans is NOT to buy american weapons. Just because it costs, makes no profit to our economies and because we are, then, under your control - and we want to remain independant. Something you can understand. So, we had to find defaults, important or not, to the Ol'C-130. We tried our best, hope it's a cool airplane. NB: Metric tons are very close to the tons of your imperial measurement.
The "C one hundred thirty" put me off this vid straight away. Also, as someone who relies on the A400 to get to and from the island where I work frankly, it's a piece of crap.
Ok, no one in the military or in aviation says "C one hundred thirty". It's the C-1-30. 😂
VERY thorough when discussing his nomenclature! 🤣🤣
Your military isn’t my military!GET IT!
In France military we used to call it c one hundred thirty.. Yes
@@honumoorea873 The UK just goes with Hercules.
@@Russia-bullies thank God it's not 😮
Can take things a C-130 can't to places a C-17 can't. There is a lot of confusion about why the A400M is so hyped just because it can carry a few more tons than the C-130. Fact is, it's not about these few tons, it's about what these few tons enable the A400M to carry. Yes, it fills a niche. But that niche is the most important niche there is. Because these few tons bring it into a cargo weight class that most modern armored fighting vehicles are in. The German and British Armies are/will be heavily Boxer MRAV based, in countless versions from IFV to recovery, bridgelayer and even fully automated 155 mm artillery, and all of them can fit into a A400M. Even a Puma IFV can fit into a A400M after taking off some of its modular armor and mounting it back on after landing. That way one can get a full blown 43 ton IFV to places others can only get armored trucks to, and i don't think anyone needs explanation of the difference in lethality and survivability between the best armored IFV in service and an armored truck. It's not about the plane, it's about what it enables.
Has it ever carried that much?
Blah blah blah. It’s importance is that it’s designed and built in Europe. Keeping that capability alive and in-house is 90% of the benefit over the US airlift platforms. It’s a fine aircraft.
A few days ago Italy confirmed the sale of 4 C-130Js for Sweden plus 2 options.
The Italian Air Force wants to replace its C-130Js with the Airbus A400M or the C-2 Kawasaki but the A400M presents various problems (reason why Italy abandoned the A400M project years ago) so we are focusing more on the Kawasaki C-2 which has similar performance and only needs an runway of 500 meters with a load of 24 tons (compared to 700 meters of the A400M).
Has Airbus solved the problems of the past?
Also Italy wanted to buy Boeing C-17 Globemaster III but they turned out to be too expensive🥲
@@CorePathway Make up your mind. Is it a fine aircraft or is the only thing that counts where it is built? What if it was a shitty aircraft, would you still enjoy a 90% benefit!
I've always called Hercs the C-One-Thirty, as do the majority of operators.
But then you know something about aviation, you're not just reading a bad script, (Or is this one of the newer robot voices).
Yeah, I was getting a little annoyed with that for some reason!
You make a good point, but who now remembers the Boeing Seven Hundred and seven? ;-)
I'm not the only one annoyed by hearing "hundred" too many times.
@@mayfieldcourt Boeing 707 is referred to as Seven-oh-seven. I have 15± years at Boeing.
Its about time a strategic airlifted not built in America gets some love. That is not taking anything away from all the American ones they are great too.
The Airbus A400 was not built as a replacement for the C-130 Hercules. The A400 is much bigger. It is supposed to be a platform between C-130 Hercules and the C-17 in size.
C-130s are still being built today. That's a testament to how well-suited they are to just about any task you'd need an airlifter for.
Eye lad but we want those flying tanks you see and strapping wings on them didn't work so the 400 was the next best thing!
no, it really won't, this thing is fragile, temperamental, hard to repair and needs constant servicing.
It's replacing something you can pepper with bullet holes and fix with a hammer and a tin of beans.
They wanted a flying truck and they got a luxury SUV.
@@ratchet2505 tf is an eye lad?
@@BigPimp238 I heard a lot of that too. The biggest problem with the 400 is repair and maintenance. I have to admit. She is pretty...
@@tdrewman oh she's beautiful, and when she works she's amazing.
She just isn't really what was wanted.
They built a high performance machine full of new tech when they wanted robust and rugged
It is not called the "C-one hundred thirty"
Lost all credibility with C-One-Hundred-Thirty. What a fail.
I love the A400M. Fantastic aircraft.
It's a wannabe C17 with turboprops
@@MARINECORPS61992113 Not even close to the truth XDDD
@@MARINECORPS61992113 C-17 is another class of Cargo plane.
The A400M has very similar charateristics of the C-2 Kawasaki(mini C-17).
@@CriscCiadduwhat is it with you and motorbikes.
Had it been more affordable Portugal would probably have gladly gone for the A-400 instead off the lighter and cheaper KC-390. But we ordered five of them, the same number of C-130s we operate. How many A-400s would we have been able to buy with the same funds? Possibly just one, two at the very most. And the KC-390 seems to be a pretty fine aircraft and probably will have a great success in the future. Efficient and affordable. Besides, EMBRAER already have facilities in Portugal.
I can not understand why you, in Portugal, need any of them. You are so lucky not to have enemies...
Its also about keeping Strategic Tech and Assets in Europe. What you safe now on money, you may pay double or more in future. Like if China invades Taiwan, its over with cheap Computer Chips for us all. Or us naive Germans with cheap Russian gas 🤣 making the lesson right now. Of course i do not assume that happens to Brazil and the facilities are in Portugal. However i guess you get what i mean. Peace to Portugal from Germany!
To my knowledge the A400M is not replacing the C-130 but only the C-160. Germany and France purchased C-130J long after they bought the A400M because it cannot operate on airfields without the necessary equipment
A400 performed better than expected and can fill the role of the C130 so having one craft (even if the perchance cost is more expensive) makes running costs and logistics much more simpler. Also note it's not a force replacement but refit replacement (meaning when frames of old craft are done with, they'll use the 400)
@@ratchet2505 The A400 is a failure for airbus. With only 178 on order, airbus failed to break even. Since you can buy 2 c130j for the price of 1 A400, everybody is buying c130j.
@@fernarias A400 is a gold-covered solution. We will see, how much the cost of ownership is over the years. Airbus had the bad luck, that war in Ukraine was not forseeable at the time of the deployment. Now, they would sell some more of them. Europe needed a war to change military policies, investments ...
That's perfectly correct except that the A400M is indeed capable of operating from airfields without necessary equipment. The A400M is just too big for some missions.
@@fernarias Come back in 40 years and *then* compare sales!
For a lot of air forces even the C130 is more than they can afford to buy and operate, so obviously the A400M is going to be further limited in sales potential, but while greater sales would have been preferred the specification requirements of the sponsoring countries took priority over sales.
I was at RIAT at RAF Fairford back in the 80's when interested parties held a meeting to discuss "Future Large Aircraft" requirements.
The design Centre for A400M was centred at Airbus facility at Filton near Bristol in the UK.
The A400M was not designed to replace the C-130 since neither Germany nor France used it. It was designed to replace the Transall C-160. In fact, replacing the fleet of both countries implied a mix of A400M and 3 C-130J operated together by France and Germany
Admin forgot one country, Malaysia. Royal Malaysian Air Force are the first Asian country operate and one of the first customer buying 4 of this plane.
Thanks for sharing.
Great job.
This C- one hundred thirty sounds interesting
You mixed up the direction of rotation for the propellers. It's defined as seen from behind so the propeller most to the right in the video (seen from the front) is actually the furthest left prop (no. 1) and spins clockwise. I think most people know that is the left wing even if it's to the right seen from the front.
The only problem is reliability, most of the time the RAF are unable to fully use all aircraft as the engines are constantly being fixed
Indeed every airforce that once the a400m has problems with the engine. The prop brake isn't working. And the dowl bolts (the bolts that connect the prop to the power gear box) need to be inspected every 50 to 100 flight hours. That will put the aircraft in a lot of down time. The un prepared landings destroys almost every antenna and the tyres are not designed to really land on un prepared runways.
@@Deadkiller-xl2fs exactly, that's why I think the UK is being shortsighted in retiring its fleet of C-130s as these have been proven in theatre many many times and and are still up to date. SF prefer these to the A-400 as they are better suited to the role they need....I know it's all about reducing costs but better thinking is needed, especially with what's currently going on around the world.
Cool plane I guess. My contribution to the band wagon --> Because the flight deck is all the way forward there's more room for cargo? I paraphrase of course but damn, where else does a flight deck go?
I was thinking the same thing!!
C-one hundred thirty sounds sooo wrong
this video is ON POINT! 😎😁Dispite what others say, Sometimes my dad, who is a ret. Enlisted Air Force reserve vet more than 17 years, will actually say, "I helped fly C- One hundred thirties" haha 😆😆🛫
100 30's, REALLY????
It was designed together and for carrying the German Puma IFV in its lowest protection level.
And the prices???
How much you must pay for one of those beast???
I read one article of janes stating that eurpoian countries are also working on a new strategic airlifter.excited to know about that as well🤔
A little bit more info about the huge developmental problems especially concerning engines and gearbox should've been warranted.
Development itself is a problem solving process. Especially when you’re tasked to do something new, huge problems are to be expected. I think this was the first ever turboprop aircraft designed by Airbus.
You're right about that. They talk big about performance, airlifting, props but not one single word about the engines. Who makes them? How many SHP? Counter rotating gearbox now thats a big job and many problems i can see.
Its a pity they can't even see that nor mention it.
I see the RAF purchasing a number of KC 390 lifters to fill agility gaps. This airframe is just getting started.
i don't like the moving black dots on the screen when you have static images during your presentation, otherwise, a very informative video, thanks.
No one says c-one hundred thirty. It's just c-one thirty.
Im glad the UK is involved in the making of aircraft still. We once had the lead but fell behind the USA. We have some great engineers in the UK!
UK used to make great planes like Spitfires, Lancaster bombers, and the very fast Mosquito.
The UK can make great aircraft, but this isn't one of them. The reliability is extremely poor.
I work for Northrop Grumman, our company actually manufactures the composite parts of the wing for the A400M. It’s not all from the UK.
India should order these heavy lift aircrafts for faster troop movements to the border!
The A400M is not the replacement for the C-130, but for the C-160!
ONE-THIRTY!!!!!
Just followed one flying from Goose Bay to Brize Norton UK. Good range!
It's a compromised aircraft as stated. The C-17 can airdrop almost everything in the US military inventory. The C-17 can carry the M1Abrams tank which is what is was designed for.
But the C-130 cannot load a Stryker whereas the A400M can load one in full kit mode. No one denies the C-17 can lift more but it cannot go where an A400M (or C-130) can go.
the airbus a400m just goes to prove the brits needed the shorts belfast all along.
the A400m is the state of the art for this type of plane.
The newest aircraft usually are. Do you have any other big insights to share?
@@cwg73160 you sound like a fun guy, bet you are a hoot at parties.
@@sparty94 Oooh I see. Someone calls you out for saying something stupid and you get defensive. Keep at it. You can keep using the party line over and over.
@@cwg73160 You didn’t call him out, you confirmed his statement by showing it is basically a logic tautology. Because the newest aircraft is always state of the art. Then you got rude and insulting.
its the replacement for the c 160, at least in germany and france
If the C-130 and C-17 had a baby.... The M400 would be the baby..
Hearing C One Hundred Thirty hurts my ears. Luv the Herc!
Here is another fact. It is called the C130 not the C one hundred thirty.
amazing aircraft
C 130 baby! And you can't beat it been in love with it all my love !
Best bird ever made
..because it's from the us, right ? Americans.....
Any 400M Loadmasters out there? I was a Crew Chief on F-4s.. I always wished i would have chosen Load Master... I told my son that was my dream job when i was his age... Is it ok on the 400M??? As he is a good candidate to become one...
Wow Leigh, you get around.
India may soon ink a deal for around 100 Units with Airbus soon.
Enhanced, Startegic, Optimal?
You used all the Military buzz words except- "Modular"
Now I can't win My Propaganda BINGO
The best Cargo transport after globe master
Having been a mover, the C-17 is a fantastic aircraft that can get in most places the C-130 was used for. I will concede that the A400 bests the C-130J in many areas aside from the most obvious: purchase price and tight budget space. Notwithstanding that C-17s are no longer in production, choosing one over the other is a matter of politics and geopolitics, not capability. While the RAF is on the fence, the EU buy Airbus and have minimal global interests requiring SAL. The US and Commonwealth all use the C-17 because everything is far away. Compared to the A400, the C-17 is faster, using less hours/YFR, and holds twice as much. This means a C-17 fleet can deploy a task force in 40% of the hours. Also, considering that hourly fleet costs are almost identical when factoring aircrew size, salaries, training, on-ground footprint, spares, maintenance, amortization/interest rates; fuel being the only item that slightly adds to a fleet’s total hourly cost. But usually you don’t deploy a task force to a dirt/short field, so if sealift is not an option and if you have a 10,000’ runway to deploy to, a single 747 holds 48 pallets, while the C-5 holds 32 (or maybe it’s 36?)… 18 for the C-17, 8 for C-130J and maybe effectively 10 for the A400, which uses different pallets. It’s worth noting that the C-17 usually “bulks out” first, meaning it runs out of space before getting overweight. This is good if you have something dense like armor or bombs and you can still fill the floor space with something light and bulky or passengers.
Basically the A400 is like a wider C-130J but it is not in the same ball park as the C-17 for doing a large and fast deployment. If the A400 is your biggest SAL asset, you will be reliant on sea or rail… or the piggy backing with the USAF for anything major.
Well good luck landing it on a dirt road. carrying is not the only thing valuable if it cant land where its going
For the love of all thats holy, STOP saying C ONE HUNDRED THIRTY!
Counter rotating propellers decreases yaw all the time if all the engines work.
I Think Philippine Air force should take a hard look on Airbus A400m atlas before deciding to purchase on C-130j Super Hercules✈️
Don't bother. Stick with the Herc.
Philippine Got Money To Buy One,Wake Up Stop Dreaming Brother Most Our Asset Are Refurbished Not New One
For the price of an A400 you can buy 2.34 C130's.
Did I miss engine type and power output? We nerds thrive on this.
Powered by 4 X Euro Prop International TP400 D6 engines, flat rated at 10690 SHP, driving Ratier Figeac propellers...
But isn't the C 130H super Hercules going to replace the current C-130, atleast in the US military?
C130J is replacing the C130H.
in germany and france, the main users of the a 400m its replacing the c 160 transall, also germany and france just bought c 130s like 3 years ago and they now get delivered
@@jonasbrock3959 hmm..... But I think the Atlas will find more market in both Europe and the rest of the world in the coming years....The British for example, are going to replace their entire C 130 fleet with A-400m by 2030.....
@@jonasbrock3959 C130 is smaller, which some times isn´t a bad thing. Therefore it still has a place as it is a very good lifter. Both are complementary for carrying different cargo to various places.
@@benjaminlamey3591 i know, thats why i said the a400m DOESN´T replace the C 130 in the major militarys
You should compare it to the Embrear C390
It's a c130 not a C one hundred and thirty.
I literally have a 400m flying over my house right now as I type this up. Had these over head for the past 2 days playing war games with all sorts like the f15, typhoons, p8, t1, some stratotankers and euro figjters.
How big does it look? 8ve always wanted to see the a400m and the eurofighter typhoon
All of this effort to create a Short's Belfast with advanced turboprops.
It's an airbus, that's enough.
The AI nose sniffing is brutal
Why is the US not buying any c400 but expects its allies to buy it's airframes such a bully
Ummm, its c-1- seven, not c-seventeen
because if it is a good plane, both Germany and the UK have decided to buy used superhercules from Italy?
because you need different Aircrafts for different tasks. All big Air Forces use several types of transport aircraft
The C-130 is a medium lift aircraft, not a heavy lift.
Comparative costs should be included
Would never be a fair comparison. A plane like the C130 is well established and has a lot of customers, that is a huge cost benefit. Like the comparison between F-35A and Eurofighter, 85m vs 120m. And people are still saying the F-35 is too expensive, such comparisons are never fair without an hour long explanation of factors that determine costs and quickly outdated when some factors change.
Guys I spoke to working with a400 in the German army speak highly of the aircraft.
I prefer the Embraer KC-390
it's C-1-30 not one hundred thirty. Military TV, yeah lol
You lost me at C one hundred thirty. If a “military” channel can’t even get aircraft terminology correct then it’s a joke.
Oh Darn. My sixty plus year old is still going strong.
Turkey isn’t a European country it’s a Asia Minor country. Only part of Turkey in Europe is Constantinople.
에어버스 A400M 최고의 기술은 프로펠러 회전 방향을 다르게 설계한것
정말 훌륭한 기술입니다
미국 C-130은 필히 배워야할 기술입니다
I believe I speak for everyone when I say we hate the way you say AC one hundred thirty.
Its an AC ONE THIRTY
Why don't they make passenger aircraft with the same attention to reliability.
God forbid the home of the An-70 buys it too... That was a much better airplane!
I guess the refuelling probe is functional but it sure looks out of place on the aircraft
It’s really a new type of pitot tube.
I'm not sure if the A400 has proved much of a money spinner for the nations involved. The RAF still retain a large fleet of Hercules.
@A Perpetual Guardsman with a flashlight Do you mean that the RAF are retiring the A400, or their fleet of Hercules?
I agree. Military Channel my “Donkey”!
For all the money spent on this aircraft a way more capable C-17 fleet could have been had and mantained. Period. From a german taxpayer!
Lots of talk. Why not the crucial. Comparison of cost, power, range, payload, fuel economy, cruising altitude & speed. And max altitude & speed all comoaredvtocthe C130.. The rest is mainly trivia.
Two minutes in and 3 sentences have been repeated 30 times.
You are comparing or at least make it appear like if the A400M was an european response to the C-130. When the A400M Is the replacement plane for the Franco-German C-160. The C-130 is not comparable to the A400M.
Lot of nations who have A400M also use C-130 when they need smaller planes.
Land on a Gerald Ford aircraft carrier class you'll bet the C-130.
....just sounded like you read off a data sheet but not actually telling me why it is good.
I not a native english speaking one but i find it interesting that some people here are... well... complaining about the pronunciation of "C-One-Hundred-Thirty" instead of "C-One-Thirty" but on the other hand did not complain of the pronunciation of "Mari-time Patrol" instead of "Maritim Patrol" @0:59.
I can't take you seriously when you say "one hundred thirty " 🤯
Funny is, Germany has got now some good new Hercs C-130 J bye bye A-400M
it's an addition, not a replacement
Wie wäre es mit "DeppMichael"?
*Bruh I can’t with these pronunciations*
Humanitarian Excavators?? Haha I think you meant something different.
Sir i need a help. From where I can get the wing design data of airbus C295
its C-ONE-30 not C130
If only it wasn’t so loud. Low detectability 😂😂Have a regular high flight over my house round about 30000 and you certainly can hear it coming and going. It makes a right racket.
It's a plane, it's going to be noisy you genius.
@@HugoAmasing you have little or no idea on the subject. So back to the drawing board Einstein
A400 is very cool, but it's expensive. It's going to be a great aircraft for some militaries, not really useful for others. For strategic use, it's reasonable across a smaller theater like inside Western Europe. Being able to carry a modern IFV in a tactical sense is also pretty cool. It's somewhat narrow though in terms of where you would need this over a C-130 or C-160 but not prefer a C-17, C-5, or some other airlifter.
Say you're the French and want to get some quick forces into Northern Africa or the middle East. Enough places there where you won't have perfect airfields. It would also have been pointless to reproduce already existing capabilities.
@@bcfuerst Oh, I understand that for certain countries in certain theaters, it's excellent. It's just a thin margin where it becomes preferable to other options. Only a few countries want or need to rapidly move troops to improvised airfields on a regular basis. Only a few countries out of those need something bigger than a C-130 and also wont use a jet-engine strategic airlifter landing further away in most of those scenarios. It's great for getting larger vehicles deployed closer to where you need them, but this already assumes or implies total air control and little to no ability by the enemy to interdict with SAM or AAA assets.
I would rather have the Cossacks it can actually carry some damn tanks
A400M can do the job of C-130 and C-17 combined. And it´s designed and produced in Europe.
The most important for us europeans is NOT to buy american weapons. Just because it costs, makes no profit to our economies and because we are, then, under your control - and we want to remain independant. Something you can understand.
So, we had to find defaults, important or not, to the Ol'C-130. We tried our best, hope it's a cool airplane.
NB: Metric tons are very close to the tons of your imperial measurement.
Nice video, but put a music in background please
Ok next time
@@Military-TV I liked it without music to be honest. We’re here to hear you speak, not for a concert
you lost me at C-one hundred thirty.
El Gordo 👍
ok,so they took a C-17,took the jet engines off and put 4 turbo propellers on it and renamed it
No
@@SAACAAS YES
The "C one hundred thirty" put me off this vid straight away. Also, as someone who relies on the A400 to get to and from the island where I work frankly, it's a piece of crap.