Saturday, October 16, 2010


Notice how they sneak in an armed X-2 into the vid??? Also the use of the 53K in the troop transport mission points to it being touted as a replacement for the MV-22 in that role. The 53K reverting to a medium/heavy lift helo? Interesting.

Airbus tactics won't work for Airbus Military.

The A-400 is, at least to me, the weirdest airplane in existence.  Its marketed as filling a niche position between the C-17 and C-130...but at a cost of only a few million dollars less than a C-130 is it viable?

I personally don't think so.  To be honest if it wasn't a jobs program (a charge that can probably be leveled at the majority of weapon systems in development right least by critics) it would be canceled.

But the business model is most annoying.  Airbus has for years waited for Boeing to develop aircraft and then plus sized them.  They did it with the 767 vs. the A330.  They did it with the 737 vs. the A320 and they're doing it with the 787 vs. the A350.

Fortunately for Lockheed Martin that same thinking isn't working in the competition for military orders.  The A400 will probably force Airbus out of the military aircraft market.  Boeing wins in the end.

You've got a Battalion creating havoc behind enemy lines...

via SLDInfo...

SLD: The ability to triple the lift allows you to more effective insert force using the Osprey as well?
Major Davis: That is true. If you wanted to put a unit in a battalion reinforced, let’s say, in one period of darkness, V-22 obviously moves the personnel, because that’s what it’s designed to do. The 53-K can bring in the armored vehicles, providing that straight-leg infantry with ground mobility. Now they’ve got vehicles that they can bring in, so now they’re mobile.
You do all that in a single period of darkness, go 100 miles off from the shore into the enemy’s backyard in one night, and you’ve got a battalion reinforced in there with armored vehicles so they can wreak havoc all behind enemy lines.