|
|
BG Archive
— Airlifter Comparisons — Airbus Military A400M |
|
EADS/Airbus A400M – European Airlifter Rolled-Out at Last but Too Late for Canada
Airbus Military’s A400M ( formerly the EuroFLAG Future Large Aircraft ) originated as a replacement for
the aging fleets of NATO Transalls and Hercules. The A400M is seen as
Europe’s answer to both the US C-17 and C-130J. Estimated unit cost was originally US$90M. The
unit cost has since climbed to over US$156M (€100 million). That is still cheaper than the
large C-17 but considerably more than C-130J. Airbus Military’s problem was that both US aircraft are in
production and service. By contrast, the A400M project would not see first metal cut until 2005.
|
|
|
An Extended Gestation & Birth Pains
Assembly of A400M components did not begin until early 2007 – two years after the original,
planned delivery of series aircraft. A400M final assembly is done at EADS Spain in Seville.
Roll- out of the first aircraft occurred on 26 June 2008 (above). But problems with the new TP400 turboprop
engine has delayed the first flight until the autumn of 2008. All this is moot so far as DND is concerned.
A400M was cut from the ACP-Strategic in June 2006 and ACP-Tactical in Nov. 2006.
|
|
|
Ongoing delays in the A400M project allowed US Lockheed Martin to gain market share for
the C-130J Hercules. Germany and France both considered Antonov’s An-70 as an
alternative to the A400M.[1] This Ukrainian airlifter compares closely to the A400M but a pull-out by
Russia ended production plans and the An-70’s future is shaky.
|
|
|
But, in a sense, the An-70 (first flight, late 1994) and the A400M (yet to fly) are a generation
apart. An-70 cockpit controls are conventional ‘spectacle’ grips, instruments are a mix
of digital and analogue. A400M has side-stick controls and ‘glass cockpit’
displays from the A380. Both An-70 and A400 are leaders in composite materials. [2]
|
|
|
Airbus Military A400M
— Specifications
| Powerplant: |
4 x 8030kW Europrop (EPI) TP400-D6 |
| Cargo hold: |
volume 342 cubic metres |
| Hold dimensions: |
17.71m L x 3.85m W x 4.0m H
(aft wings) |
| Carrying capacity: |
max payload 37t (max takeoff weight 110t) |
| Maximum range: |
4540km (with 30t payload), 6576km (20t) |
| Speed range: |
max cruise Mach 0.68 to Mach 0.72 |
| Inflight refueling: |
max 41t transferable fuel ( 2 or 3 x HDUs) |
|
|
|
The A400M propulsion system is equally advanced if some- what less complex than their contra-rotating
equivalents on the An-70. Europrop bench-tested their TP400
turboprop for the first time in late 2005. [3] A Hercules flying test bed was modified to carry a
TP400 but engine development problems have delayed the entire A400M project. Airbus insists that the
first A400M delivery date (for France) will be delayed by no more than one year (from 2009 to 2010).
There’s the rub – DND wanted both strategic and tactical airlifters delivered earlier. In late 2004, DND
gave up its options on involvement in the A400M project.
|
|
|
[1] This was likely a bargaining ploy on the part of the French and German governments. Ukraine continues to seek German
industrial (or financial) An-70 involvement, while rejuvenated joint Russian-Ukrainian production has
been actively discussed as recently as June 2008.
[2] The A400M wing is almost entirely composite (wing box and skins are carbon fibre reinforced plastic, ribs are
aluminum). In the earlier An-70 design, composites were used for the highly-stressed tailplane torsion boxes
– Antonov previously focused on unstressed parts.
[3] The partners in EuroProp International are Rolls-Royce (UK), MTU (Germany), ITP (Spain), and Snecma (France).
Originally, the Rolls- Royce BR715 turboprop was in competition with the M138 backed by MTU, Fiat
Avio (Italy) and Snecma (the M138 being based upon Snecma’s M88 turbofan core). P&W Canada’s
PW180 was in the running as an alternative A400M engine but that proposal was rejected.
|
|