A400M Atlas News

A400M Future Large Aircraft

Some new videos and a couple of interesting images from the Airbus Military A400M Atlas programme


A VBCI fit check



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

24 Responses

  1. We have 24 Puma HC2s. 2 pumas per a400. (how many can we fit on a C17 btw?) we are meant to get 22 A400. That leaves 10 to fly out spares, maintainers, fuel, tents, etc.

    Now that is air mobility


  2. @ Mark Ahhh….. :( Thats boring! I was getting rather excited then… (you just had to spoil it)

    So we can lift all our pumas in one go with A400

    Maybe we could AAR…

  3. Presumably this is a fit check of VBCI to certify the A400M atlas for the French Air Force, rather than an indication that the MoD is about to buy loads of VBCI to fulfil the FRES UV requirement?

  4. @Tubby

    France received it’s first A400 on 2 August 2013, I would have thought that they had checked if the VBCI fits by now ;-)

  5. @DavidNiven

    Only if they are more efficient than we are at certifying aircraft after all didn’t we bring Voyager into service before we had certified it for A2A refuelling? :-)

  6. @Tubby

    ‘didn’t we bring Voyager into service before we had certified it for A2A refuelling?’

    Good point, well made sir! :-) Although I have a gut feeling Phil will be making an announcement on VBCI in the not too distant future.

  7. I’m sure one of the variants of the Naval version Super Puma could fold up its tail boom back in the AeroSpatiale days (AS 332F). Buggered if I can find any more than photographs of the rotors folding though.

  8. @DavidNiven

    Well we can certainly hope so – at this point I would welcome anything that get FRES UV into service sooner rather than later. I just wish that we also getting rid of Jackal as well, as it worries me that we are having to develop doctrine for the light cavalry role around the equipment rather than the other way (i.e developing equipment to match our doctrine). Sorry if this post isn’t quite as tongue in cheek as the others!

  9. @Tubby

    Yeah agreed, we need to make a decision and buy something and get it into service. My only niggle with the VBCI is that I can see growth/upgrades further down the line being more of a problem over something like the Boxer with it’s modular rear. I think it will be easier and more cost effective to keep the Boxer upgraded for 40 years over the VBCI. (but like I say it’s just a niggle)

  10. @Ted – I want to see it fitted for MPA…with bombs/missiles…as an air support gunship…and in as many numbers as we can possibly afford… :-)

    All in modular kits if course.


  11. GNB – I just wrote a long comment in reply to comments posted by yourself & x on Open Thread and got it bounced too. Maybe TD can dig out the Fray Bentos to satiate Spammonster’s appetite so we can get back to putting the world to rights.

  12. @Chris – hopefully our wisdom will appear in due course – printed, cut into small squares, and hanging from a hook on the s**thouse door!


  13. Of course, with smaller vehicles you can also shift the palleted stores on the same flight that allow you to utilize the vehicle at the other end.

    Maybe the MoD wants to get some cash committed to VBCI before the 2015 election, budget squeeze, and subsequent defence review throws a spanner into the works.

    How many VBCI would four or five Type26 buy? The Navy doesn’t do a great deal nowadays.

Comments are closed.