Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
French Buy C-235s As A400M "Stop Gap" Measure  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10541 times:

Reported in Defense News.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4564377&c=EUR&s=AIR

Quote:
Paris - France's Direction Générale pour l'Armement (DGA) has ordered eight Casa CN-235 transport aircraft for 225 million euros ($305 million) as a stopgap measure pending delivery of the larger A400M airlifter, the procurement office said April 1.

I am left to wonder what adding more of these small transports will achieve, if the real intent is to provide additional lift in the near term to substitute for the delays on the A400M? As I noted on the tanker thread, this would have been a splendid opportunity for the French to "lead the way" and provide an example of reciprocal benefits on defense purchases by leasing or buying some C-130Js. Instead, they opted to stay with the "home team". Not that I have issues with preferring one's own domestic industry; I don't, and have long advocated that for that reason alone, the USAF tanker procurement should have NEVER been competed, but sole sourced to the "home team". I do find the juxtaposition with Sarko, et al, decrying U.S. "protectionism" and this sole source purchase from EADS rather hypocritical at this sensitive time.

Do as we say, not as we do, say's M. Sarko & friends.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10224 times:

I'll repost what I posted in the other thread in reply.....

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 152):

Quote:
one would think that after all their lectures of "protectionism", they would have bought or leased C-130Js to underscore the two-way nature of defense purchases?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 153):

Quote:
The CN-235 does not have near the capability of the C-130J,

This is the more telling aspect of it and flies in the face of all the noises they made re the Herc's limited capability. After all, stopgap or not, they suddenly upped and went for an even more incapable aircraft. They wouldn't even go for the C-295 --- its very own stretched version. I wonder what's wrong with that plane.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ricardo Aysa Calahorra
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alejandro Hdez Leon


.....Hecho en Espana?

The Spartan would have been a better stopgap.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Md Faridz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dean West




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10206 times:

Where are the screams from the EU over this 'protectionist' contract? Was LM even allowed to bid the C-130J? Was there an RFP, or is this just a support our industries contract?

Yet, the French are in the front line screaming about US protectionism on the KC-X.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe CASA cut them a great deal to atone for being late on the A400M? CASA (now EADS-Spain) is assembling the A400M, after all.

Still, it does make Le President look a bit hypocritical...


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9877 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 1):
.....Hecho en Espana?

And that says it all.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Still, it does make Le President look a bit hypocritical...

More than a little bit at that.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9769 times:

Haven't we forgotten that France already operates aircraft of this type?
Originally ordered as far back as 1990?
So really, all the objections about imagined 'protectionism' are invalid.
Since it appears this latest top up is more about easing the burden on the current fleet in lieu of delays to A400M.
Not as a substitute.

Remember the French already operate the C-130.

This link for a top up order is from 2002;

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/investor...s_ir/2002/en_20020628_cn235_e.html

So this is hardly stunning news is it?

France does not pretend to be in favour of totally free markets, so objections to some protectionism miss the point, since they've not been pressuring, lecturing and boring the world for decades about this, when the US is just as protectionist.

Oddly, there seem to be no pics of a French AF CN-235 on this sites database, so;

http://www.pictaero.com/en/pictures/picture,79674

[Edited 2010-04-05 04:14:55]

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9710 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
So really, all the objections about imagined 'protectionism' are invalid.

I disagree entirely. I would have been willing to buy that if they had done this via public tender, but they choose to sole source apparently.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Remember the French already operate the C-130.

Exactly. So why not opt for more of the larger and more capable planes, rather than more little planes? Wouldn't that provide "best value for the [French] warfighter"? If the stated goal is a "stop gap" to tide them over until the long delayed A400M arrives, wouldn't it be more economical purchase say 4 C-130s, rather than twice the number of little CN-235s?

Again, they missed a splendid opportunity to make a case for strong bilateral defense trade. And so soon after M. Sarko left Barak's house!

Mind you, I don't think this is the wrong approach. I've been advocating this on our tanker procurement for years. And if that means we're "protectionist", then so be it. Call it what it is.

[Edited 2010-04-05 05:20:52]

(Note: the concern expressed above for the French "warfighter" is sarcasm and intended as irony. I hope no one takes this wrong way buy I have more concern about who will win tonight's NCAA Basketball final, than for the French warfighter. And that's not a bad thing, just not my concern its the people of France. I wince every time I see a non-US poster telling me what's best for the U.S. warfighter WRT the USAF tanker procurement, when the actual reality is that they could care less as well. N'est-ce pas?)


[Edited 2010-04-05 05:27:44]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9691 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
wouldn't it be more economical purchase say 4 C-130s, rather than twice the number of little CN-235s?

It might be that it's part of a 'grovel package' from EADS since it's delays to another of their products that seem to have generated this latest order.
They can also make the case, that once A400M is is service, having a refreshed CN-235 fleet is useful for all those taks where a A400M is too much aircraft, releasing them for their main taskings.

Worth remembering that back when the CN-235 was first ordered, the ATR group (half French), lobbied hard for a military version of the ATR commuterliner.
When the French AF did not want to wait for (and effectively pay to develop) a rear ramp version of the ATR, the company mocked up a side cargo door version in an attempt to sell it as a decent alternative.
It was not very convincing, instead despite all the pressure, they went out and brought Spanish, back then CASA was not part of a larger grouping, this was 10 years before EADS.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9661 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Haven't we forgotten that France already operates aircraft of this type?
Originally ordered as far back as 1990?
So really, all the objections about imagined 'protectionism' are invalid.
Since it appears this latest top up is more about easing the burden on the current fleet in lieu of delays to A400M.
Not as a substitute.

Remember the French already operate the C-130.

Well, the French does currently fly the C-235, as well as the C-130. So what? They currently do not fly the A-400 or A-330MRTT, but have one on order and will order the other.

What ever happened to the French commitment to buying the C/KC-390? Seems they were interested in sell French built fighters to Brazil.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
France does not pretend to be in favour of totally free markets, so objections to some protectionism miss the point, since they've not been pressuring, lecturing and boring the world for decades about this

Oh really? Have you been following the French insistance on the US allowing EADS to build the KC-X? I guess you are right afterall. France does not pretend to favor totally free markets, they demand on building everything for everyone, even if the product they build is inferior or does not fully suit what the customer wants/needs.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9627 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Oh really? Have you been following the French insistance on the US allowing EADS to build the KC-X? I guess you are right afterall. France does not pretend to favor totally free markets, they demand on building everything for everyone, even if the product they build is inferior or does not fully suit what the customer wants/needs.

1) Not a wholly French aircraft.
2) They are as bewildered as others at the procurement (sorry, lawyer money machine), at the Pentagon. First it's selected, then it's not. Not a transatlantic issue either, witness the Chinook selection for the CSAR requirement that went the same way, only without a proper alternative. And screw the warfighter's requirements. (Boeing did not seem to think having the biggest of the competing types was a bad thing that time did they? They sold it on that).

Who is insisting anyway?

I often think that main objection for some in the US, to France, is simply because they do, on a smaller scale, what the US does very often.
It resonates. If they put France first, never mind prior agreements, it's bad. Patriotic when the US does the same though.

Example, how absurd was it that France objected to a foreign buy out of what was essentially, a yogurt company, citing 'national economic sovereignty'.
Now go to civil aviation and check the continuing objections to Virgin US, due to it's doubts, not even real ones, about US ownership. It's just a small domestic carrier for heavens sake, why are there even those rules?
Then Dubai Ports.

As we say here, six of one, half a dozen of the other.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9579 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
Now go to civil aviation and check the continuing objections to Virgin US, due to it's doubts, not even real ones, about US ownership. It's just a small domestic carrier for heavens sake, why are there even those rules?


The U.S. DOT quashed the Virgin American foreign ownership claims. Dubai ports was kind of ugly, but AFAIK, no one had to plead guilty over bribery!

The U.S. DOD continues to insist on competing for the tanker when it could easily get this sole sourced via an exception to the procurement regs through the Congress. So far they haven't asked for this permission, but this whole procurement is wearing very, very thin on a lot of people over here. Frankly, it may just be too hard. I personally would love to see it and would welcome the cries of "protectionism". I would even agree they are warranted in that case! IMO, the french procurement of these small aircraft are a "thumb in the eye" to Ashton Carter & the entire DOD acquisition team involved in the tanker procurement. It makes them look like a pack of horses @$$es!

Unquestionably, the french are acting in their own best interest and that of their infrastructure by buying these little planes. However, when we do the same, or even intimate that we may do it, we are subjected to (1) The Darleen gambit; (2) the "best interests of the warfighter" argument; (3) "the most capable tanker" nonsense. Again, "do as we say, not as we do" seems to be the take away here.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9551 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
Now go to civil aviation and check the continuing objections to Virgin US, due to it's doubts, not even real ones, about US ownership.

That is a US company, Alaska Airlines, trying to use the regulation to fight a competitor. The DOT investigated the claim because, well, that is part of their job function. But as Lumberton notes, they denied said claim, so the US government certainly does not seem to have machinations on denying VA access to the US domestic market.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9281 times:

There are times when it seems a French reluctance to buy American hurts them, for instance, it is most unusual that they have nothing in the Chinook/CH-53 class, given the size of their forces and how much deploying they do.
It's a real gap, they built some Super Frelon's years back, not quite in the same class but above Puma/Super Puma, the latter certainly true if they had upgraded theirs like Israel did.
But no, they just built a small number for ASW/SAR and a very secondary, barely used, transport role.

On the other hand, when they wanted both land based and carrier AEW aircraft, where did they go?
And when they needed some carrier compatible LGB's, though this was to support Afghan operations early on.

Had the CN-235 been new in French service with this recent order, I'd understand the negativity towards it.
But, they are aiming for eventually, a two tier transport fleet, A400M and CN-235.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3417 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9222 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
they denied said claim

Kinda, They did make VA jump through some new hoops....

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
They can also make the case, that once A400M is is service, having a refreshed CN-235 fleet is useful for all those taks where a A400M is too much aircraft, releasing them for their main taskings.

Yet, for some reason some posters can only see graft and handouts when the USAF trys to replace KC135 with the cheapest plane that meets KC135R specs.

I really don't care about this stopgap, but France should alteast learn to keep thier mouth shut if they are going to sole source contracts like this.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9126 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Instead, they opted to stay with the "home team"

  The aircraft are from CASA, Spain.

Are the C130J even in the same class? Would it be smart to operate a few alongside the new A400M fleet?

Never let facts ruin a good story line..


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10106 posts, RR: 97
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
I disagree entirely. I would have been willing to buy that if they had done this via public tender, but they choose to sole source apparently.

You might be missing a point here..
I would suggest that the reason for the choice of this aircraft is that it is co-produced by the manufacturer of the A400M, and can thus be offered as part of a "settlement" process with the least impact to both parties..

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
It might be that it's part of a 'grovel package' from EADS since it's delays to another of their products that seem to have generated this latest order.

I suspect you're right.  

Rgds


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8862 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
he aircraft are from CASA, Spain.

Which is part of EADS. France is a major shareholder in EADS.

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
Never let facts ruin a good story line..

See above.   
Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
I would suggest that the reason for the choice of this aircraft is that it is co-produced by the manufacturer of the A400M, and can thus be offered as part of a "settlement" process with the least impact to both parties..

It could, or it could just be a knee jerk response to a requirement by buying local. The timing leaves lots to be desired, coming as it does so soon after Sarko left the White House. There has been so much noise from some about U.S. "protectionism" just for framing a request for proposals. One would think at some point that those leveling the charge would want to set an example and at least go out with a public tender for cosmetic reasons?

But there are different standards of behavior at work, are there not?

[Edited 2010-04-06 02:16:26]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8813 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
If the stated goal is a "stop gap" to tide them over until the long delayed A400M arrives, wouldn't it be more economical purchase say 4 C-130s, rather than twice the number of little CN-235s?

Operating very small subfleets is not economical. Whole new supply chains need to be setup, maintainers need to be trained on a new type, and spares need to be purchased. From my understanding, although it shares the Hercules parentage, and general fuselage shape, the C-130J is essentially a whole new airplane compared to the older Herc's. And finding used C-130H's in decent shape is next to impossible.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
Which is part of EADS. France is a major shareholder in EADS.

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
Never let facts ruin a good story line..

See above.   

You obviously don't know how EADS/EU works. It's all a big evil entity to you.. The benefits Sarko would get from buying CN-235 is neglectible. The CN-235 investments, supply chain was set up 15 years before EADS took over. It's really made in Spain. If it would be ATR's it would be different..

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
But there are different standards of behavior at work, are there not?

Yes, we all have seen embarrasing examples recently. Some are still trying to justify them at every remote opportunity.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Operating very small subfleets is not economical.

  


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8761 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Oh really? Have you been following the French insistance on the US allowing EADS to build the KC-X? I guess you are right afterall. France does not pretend to favor totally free markets, they demand on building everything for everyone, even if the product they build is inferior or does not fully suit what the customer wants/needs.

1) Not a wholly French aircraft.
2) They are as bewildered as others at the procurement (sorry, lawyer money machine), at the Pentagon. First it's selected, then it's not. Not a transatlantic issue either, witness the Chinook selection for the CSAR requirement that went the same way, only without a proper alternative. And screw the warfighter's requirements. (Boeing did not seem to think having the biggest of the competing types was a bad thing that time did they? They sold it on that).

1.) I see, that makes all the difference.

2.) I might point out that at this point, both the KC-767 and KC-30 have been selected, at one time or another.

Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
Who is insisting anyway?

The President of France.

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
a two tier transport fleet, A400M and CN-235.
Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
Are the C130J even in the same class? Would it be smart to operate a few alongside the new A400M fleet?

The British seem to think so. They already fly the C-17 and C-130, and still have some 20-22 A-400s on order.

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
Never let facts ruin a good story line..

Just trying to follow your lead in that respect.

Quoting keesje (Reply 18):
You obviously don't know how EADS/EU works.

Does anybody?


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8731 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 18):
EADS/EU works. It's all a big evil entity to you.

I agree its big; the "evil" is your characterization.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Operating very small subfleets is not economical.

Agreed. But there are often strategic and tactical considerations that outweight the simple economic consideration. Not to minimize this, but it isn't the only consideration.

Here the french had a chance to make a positive statement on the benefits of two way defense procurement; they opted to stay with the home team. And speaking of tactical considerations, what benefits are derived from these smaller aircraft versus leasing or purchasing C-130Js as an interim measure?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The British seem to think so. They already fly the C-17 and C-130, and still have some 20-22 A-400s on order.

  



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8687 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 20):
Here the french had a chance to make a positive statement on the benefits of two way defense procurement; they opted to stay with the home team. And speaking of tactical considerations, what benefits are derived from these smaller aircraft versus leasing or purchasing C-130Js as an interim measure?

Help me out here, we are talking the 6.000 kg max payload C235 versus a 20.000 kg max payload C130J right?

Someties specification and requirements seem to become unimportant side lines and the grant scheme of things here..

Should we consider C-17s to replace our Fokker 50s ?


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
Help me out here,

The aircraft are being purchased as a "stop gap" for the A400M. Yes, it is really ridiculous to buy these little planes when you think about it.

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
Someties specification and requirements seem to become unimportant side lines and the grant scheme of things here..

Yes, a CN-235 is not nearly as good as a "stop gap" for the A400M as the larger C-130J, but it is made in the one of the airbus countries, and that makes it OK.

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
Should we consider C-17s to replace our Fokker 50s ?

Well, if a CN-235 is a suitable stop gap for an A400M, why not?

[Edited 2010-04-06 06:47:17]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1922 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8615 times:

It's about long-term planning. If you want your transport fleet to consist off two types, then why start adding a third by introducing a stop gap plane for which you won't have a need later on? It would be a waste of money.

Also, operating new C-130J's or C-27's would, in one way, add a new type to the fleet, with all the challenges. Keeping it on C-235's tackles that issue.

I think this order isn't about supporting the "home team", but more about spending your money wisely if you need a stop gap.

Cheers!   

[Edited 2010-04-06 07:39:33]

[Edited 2010-04-06 07:40:25]


Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8473 times:

Be fair, the shape of the RAF's fleet has emerged over 15 years.
The older and most hard worked C-130K's needed replacement in the near term by the 1990's, the only game in town then was the C-130J.
But they were always looking at something more substantial, post Cold War with out of NATO area deployability being more important.
The twists and turns of the politics (and limited budgets), meant that the A400M was not formally launched by 2003.

With these delays a lease for 4 C-17's was arranged in 2000, a direct response to airlift shortfalls in the 1999 Kosovo campaign.

The rapid tempo of operations after 2001 required some more C-17's, the lease turned into a buy.
Even the most optimistic A400M delivery dates would not have changed this, the later C-17's were effectively 'Urgent Operational Requirement' buys.

The rest of the C-130K fleet to be replaced by A400M.

The French President says this and that, how much is actually translated into policy?

As stated, they could have ordered the more home grown ATR, some military version of it, but never did, despite heavy lobbying.
They did not this time either, it does not do the job.

My own airline are, this year, getting some Boeing's as part of compensation for 787 delays, not really in the same size class but nonetheless allowing savings on having to run aging types now the planning for their retirement was changed by the 787 being so late.

The same is clearly happening here.
It's just a few CN-235's, to refresh the existing fleet, allowing more flying hours.
LM are not responsible for A400M delays, why should they gift the French AF?


25 Pihero : That's US B.S To think that the CN-235 could replace an A400 is ridiculous. Might as well buy a Caravan for that purpose. But repeating the BS may ma
26 Post contains links Lumberton : Here it is from a french publication. This certainly qualifies as a "stop gap", or is this "French B.S."? http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...s-8-
27 Pihero : Te top of your article says it all, and it's not from the French : "(Issued in French only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)" So, it'
28 Post contains links Pihero : That's why the USAF - and the CIA - fly CN-235 ? 427th special ops squadron (I notice that you didn't purchase them on an RFP ). Because to carry 5 t
29 Lumberton : I said it was from a French publication. Defense-Aerospace is a French publication. Their editorial slant is heavily pro-european aerospace, not bein
30 Lumberton : To the best of my knowledge, the Germans haven't selected any "stop gap" airlift yet. The French passed on a very good chance to set a very good exam
31 flyingwaeldar : Which leads me to a question for our American friends. Should the USAF issue a RFP every time they top up a fleet of existing aircraft, lets say C-17
32 Post contains links and images Devilfish : The C-27J was not yet available when they bought it. Note that the caption says it's the lone example of its type in USAF service..... View Large Vie
33 ThePointblank : With an aircraft they already operate... and no, a small subfleet of C-130J's is not economical, and it is not a good use of resources. The C-130J is
34 Post contains links keesje : Brown equally slamped the tanker proces but somehow . Somehow that got less attention. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03...sarkozy-slam-protection
35 Post contains links and images Pihero : The photographer wasn't well informed : See this On another site, there are pics of four of these airplanes, so there could be more. Thanks, keesje,
36 Eagleboy : While the US insist on tender for every piece of equipment perhaps this was a simple as the French military saying "If the A400M is delayed we want t
37 ThePointblank : I know for a fact that finding used C-130's in decent shape is next to impossible, and the wait list for C-130J's is pretty long, unless you can get
38 Post contains images Devilfish : Four is still only a handful, and "could be" is so indefinite. Calling all resident photo "sleuths" out there. Lockheed Martin left the partnership a
39 Pihero : There doesn't seem to be any future for ATR past the 42/72 family. Diverging industrial interests on the global scale, I guess.
40 KC135TopBoom : So what exactly can the CN-235 do that a C-130 cannot? Correct. Doesn't the French AF also operate a sub-fleet of two A-340-200s and two A-330s? No o
41 Post contains images keesje : Are questioning the objectivity of some US news sources? I think the trick is selecting & repeating info that fits existing believes and ignoring
42 Post contains images LifelinerOne : So what? The A310's and A340's are passengerplanes. That's a whole other mission than hauling cargo. Are you suggesting that the Air Force should use
43 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Indeed, look how long it took to get our "new" C-130's up and running. We ordered two half a decade ago and the first one just arrived from Cambridge
44 Post contains images Pihero : Carry up to 6000kg of cargo at a cost that the Herc can never match. I thought that was obvious ! Wrong or dishonest statement. the Spartan has been
45 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The USAF operated 10 C-27As from 1990-1999, all retired ar were transferred to other US government agencies by 2000. The US State Dept. currently ope
46 Pihero : ...or, another possibility : with weak mathematics ? as 2010 -1990 = 20 years. QED. As usual your semantics are bizarre. The USAF had the experience
47 KC135TopBoom : Minus the ten years the USAF has not operated the type. Have them available for use, because they are in storage in AMRAC is not the same thing as op
48 Pihero : are all those C-127 pilots dead ? are all the engineers and Mechanics who maintain them gone to Russia ? No ! In this case, there is still experience.
49 Post contains links GDB : Another example of those French not buying American................oh wait! http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/France_10-04.pdf Clearly this
50 Lumberton : $69 million...but its a start. Now about those planes....
51 KC135TopBoom : The USAF has no one current or qualified in the C-27A any more. They could by sending people to Spain or Italy for training. But when that one C-27A
52 A342 : France has also ordered Hellfires for their Tigers, despite having local alternatives.
53 Post contains links and images Devilfish : To illustrate..... View Large View MediumPhoto © S. M. Reeves It was a very accurate statement. The C-27J was referred to very specifically, and not
54 GDB : They'll be used in support of the US led operation in Afghanistan, they'll be top up orders. Hold that point, in support of their Afghan operation ,
55 Post contains links and images mandala499 : CN-235s are jointly produced by CASA and Indonesian Aerospace. The CN-235 agreement called for IAe to construct everything rear of the wing, and CASA
56 r2rho : C'mon, let's leave all the stuff about protectionism aside. Don't you see what's really going here? To me, this is a result of side negotiations betwe
57 GDB : Mandala, who was worse, me or the search engine? Thanks for finding the pics. r2rho, absolutely, I find all this fuss odd. It seems to be more about t
58 Post contains images mandala499 : There seems to be a problem with searching "CN235" or CN-235 on the database... doing it with "Airtech CN-235" keywords did the trick... Search under
59 Aesma : I've not read the entire thread yet, so sorry if it has already been answered. Are C-130 available quickly ? Are C-235 ? How much do they cost, respec
60 Tancrede : Sorry, but I still feel safer in an Airbus than in a Boeing and feel worse in an MD or DC.[Edited 2010-04-10 12:26:33]
61 A342 : Sometimes I think that Indonesian Aerospace could be a potential takeover target for EADS. Their only product not licensed from EADS or its predecess
62 Aesma : I'll answer my own questions, then. The C130J is much pricier than the CASA 235, so for the same price than the 8 CASAs, France could have bought one,
63 Post contains images mandala499 : EADS, and DASA, I've heard, have discussed it with them in the past. Thank our former President... he's basically a MBB/DASA/EADS proponent (except f
64 Post contains images Baroque : Fits so much under the bleeding obvious category, one has to wonder why the question was ever asked!! Indeed and the intro of the CN-235 to the Jkt t
65 A342 : And an aerospace engineer! Very interesting. The space for a belly radar underneath the CN-235 doesn't seem exactly ample, but still acceptable. Seem
66 Aesma : I found a French senate document putting the C130J at 110 millions €. I don't know what that price would include. For the 8 CASAs, it's 225 million
67 Post contains images mandala499 : And I consider it an irony when knowing those HLP/CGK-BDO flights were done on the lame duck CN-235-10s (Merpati's CN-235 pilots hate the low durabil
68 Baroque : Funny thing though is that eccentric as he was, until SBY came along, he would have bid fair to be the best President of the democratic era. Getting
69 Pihero : I seem to remember - but I can't find the article - that quite recently, there was a plan for CASA / EADS to take over 70 % of the 235 / 295 operatio
70 Post contains images sebolino : My God, it's an American who wrote that, and seriously !
71 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : You could be right. But then again, if France is goiung to buy the A-330MRTT to repalce their C-135FR tankers, why didn't they just order the A-330F,
72 Post contains images mandala499 : I initially thought they got the new batch of CN-235-200Ms at rock bottom prices... but over the past few posts, it appears as if they got it at the
73 A342 : Must have been a C-295, since the Polish Air Force doesn't have any CN-235s.
74 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Which reminds us of another very tragic accident..... View Large View MediumPhoto © Krzysztof Skowronskihttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rsonn
75 Pihero : Touché. Should havew checked it before. The pic only shows the - very recognisable - CN-2x5 tail, complete with the strakes. regards
76 KC135TopBoom : That tragic accident really isn't related to the French purchase of CN-235s, does it?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic French Buy C-235s As A400M "Stop Gap" Measure
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A400M Issues Same As A380? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 20:06:42 by RedFlyer
Malaysia About To Buy A400M posted Mon Jan 24 2005 17:12:49 by Columba
SwedenAirForce To Buy A400M? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 16:11:47 by Solnabo
A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations posted Tue Mar 16 2010 11:40:28 by Revelation
SA Still Waits For A400M Refund posted Sat Mar 13 2010 06:29:38 by Revelation
EADS, EPI Seek Damages Over A400M Engine posted Sat Mar 13 2010 06:14:25 by Revelation
A400M Delays Feed C-130J Sales posted Sat Mar 6 2010 08:36:01 by Revelation
A400M Talks In Final Round posted Fri Feb 19 2010 07:07:12 by Revelation
Airbus Threaten To Cancel A400M posted Thu Jan 7 2010 05:32:56 by Daysleeper
A400M Flight Test Prototypes posted Mon Jan 4 2010 08:48:13 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format