Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16515 times:

From what I have been reading, the USAF has been looking at the A400M. Now my question is, will the USAF actually order A400Ms, and how would an A400M fleet effect the USAF C-17s and C-130Js fleets?

126 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16516 times:

currently? Negative one billion %.

The C17 is far cheaper lift, and the C130 is already fully developed for special missions.

EADS need to not only get the special missions of the A400M on line, but get the price down to less than 1/2 of the C17 for a basic cargo A400M


User currently offlineepa001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):
The C17 is far cheaper lift


I am not sure about that. But especially in these times of huge budget cuts I do not expect any order for an A400M from the US soon. No doubt they could use the plane, but these missions can also be covered with the current fleets of C17's and C130's they already have.

So maybe the chances are not negative one billion %, but I agree with you and I too would call it highly unlikely that the USAF would order an A400M in the coming years.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16444 times:

Cold day in hell.

"There is a potential future gap in tactical airlift capabilities for transporting medium- weight army equipment that cannot fit on C-130 aircraft," GAO auditors wrote in a November 2009 report on the airlift fleet.

"It's flying what won't fit into a C-130 into places where a C-17 can't land,"

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oised-for-us-market-spotlight.html

I heard the C-17 is just very cheap and the A400M incredible expensive so, that says enough.

I have no hard prove it is not underperforming, so it might as well be.



User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16403 times:

Has something changed since this thread that we need another?
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 (by Keesje Jan 30 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)?threadid=80807&searchid=118366&s=a400#ID118366

Or this?
Airbus A400M Export Campaigns (by keesje Jun 22 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Last I heard, USAF personnel went to an airshow and toured the A400M. That's similar to the last time I was in Vegas checking out a Ferrari. I would like to have one and I'm "expressing interest", but my 4 year old auto will suffice and I've already paid for it.

[Edited 2010-09-11 05:05:58]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16392 times:

An order for say 35 or so A400s for the USAF might be a way to soothe over the awarding of the tanker contract to Boeing.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineepa001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
An order for say 35 or so A400s for the USAF might be a way to soothe over the awarding of the tanker contract to Boeing.


If the USAF should order the A400M, it should be decided on the qualities of the airplane and the attractiveness of the total deal. It should not be ordered as a consolation price imho.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16383 times:

The only way this will happen is if the AF has an RFP with funding that specifies an aircraft that only the A400 or AN-70 can meet. That would exclude the C-130 or C-17 as too small and too big.

User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7621 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16368 times:

Quoting epa001 (Reply 6):
If the USAF should order the A400M, it should be decided on the qualities of the airplane and the attractiveness of the total deal. It should not be ordered as a consolation price imho.

You have got to be joking  
In military purchases of large magnitude - a/c being one of them - politics probably make up more that 75% of the decision, in my opinon, much much greater than civilian purchases whree the percentage is probably 40-50%, again my opinion.
If the US gets into another conflict and needs EU support, purchasing more EU products is a sure way to influence or put pressure on those making the decision.
Question, do you think the selection of the last POTUS helicopter was in any way affected by such a thought?

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
"There is a potential future gap in tactical airlift capabilities for transporting medium- weight army equipment that cannot fit on C-130 aircraft," GAO auditors wrote in a November 2009 report on the airlift fleet.

"It's flying what won't fit into a C-130 into places where a C-17 can't land,"

Such has always and will always be the case and when that happens they move the item by ground / rail or deposit it within operating range of a helicopter with a sling.
It's like aircraft engines, how many carriers of ETOPS twins have ordered cargo a/c for those times when diversions occur and engine replacements are required?
The military designed its cargo carriers to handle equipment they consider essential, they will finds ways to position "adhoc" items which is cheaper than purchasing a cargo platform, ever heard of a battle cancelled because they could not get a 155mm gun to the front?  


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16349 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
That's similar to the last time I was in Vegas checking out a Ferrari.


  

Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled. Might all be non sense of course, we really can't know yet, it isn't in service. For the European Air Forces it puts important parts of the Middle East and Africa under direct reach for higher loads.


User currently offlineSandroMag From Portugal, joined Nov 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16304 times:

Embraer KC-390 has more chances to get an US order than A400M

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16242 times:

Quoting SandroMag (Reply 10):
Embraer KC-390 has more chances to get an US order than A400M

I agree, it is faster, carries a little more, has two engines, more mission capability, and is cheaper.

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled. Might all be non sense of course, we really can't know yet, it isn't in service. For the European Air Forces it puts important parts of the Middle East and Africa under direct reach for higher loads.

No Keesje, the USMC is happy with their new KC-130Js. They are looking at the AC-130J based on the tanker (less capable than the USAF AC-130H/U/P) they already have for their SpecOps.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3839 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

gone are the days of 'we have to have some because they exist', and we'll figure out it's purpose later...

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16201 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled.

Doen't make a lot of sense in-light of the following:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...3/gates-reviewing-role-of-marines/


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4700 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16157 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
carries a little more

Make that "significantly less".

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
has two engines

And how would this be an advantage (for military customers, anyway)?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
more mission capability

How do you know that?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 16113 times:

If the C-130 is to small for a vehicle, you can always call in a C-17, C5 or use road / sea transport. Easy as that!

User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

I think the A400M has a chance in high number for the US.

But only IF two things are happening:


1. Boeing gets the tanker deal as sole provider.

2. Europe buys the Poseidon instead of the A319 as next ASW platform.


Politics at its best...


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 16000 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 16):
I think the A400M has a chance in high number for the US.

Why? We have less than 220 C17 and the USAF claims it needs 0 more. The C17 hauls twice as much (or more) for not a whole lot more money per frame. Its even possibly cheaper per frame if you look at the costs to introduce the A400M type vs mere addon order of the C17. Which is how the USAF should look at it since the C17 doesn't have those extra costs when you buy a few more C17 frames, its been paid for decades ago. The A400M would need extensive training, parts inventories, and other costs beyond its actual frame cost.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 15996 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
The A400M would need extensive training, parts inventories, and other costs beyond its actual frame cost.

Do you really think you know the price, Airbus is offering the A400M for?

I could imagine a VERY sweet deal to come into the market.


The C17 sometimes is an overkill, not to mention the C5...
The size of the C130 is not suitable for a lot of equipment today.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 15956 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 7):
That would exclude the C-130 or C-17 as too small and too big.

I think something maybe going on behind the scenes, Boeing has been talking up an improved "soft field' C-17, and also a narrow fuselage C-17. Lockheed has also been talking up a fatter C-130.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
carries a little more

I doubt the C-390 will even out lift a C-130 when the first frames come of the production line, the runway performance I suspect will be nowhere near what the C-130 or A400M could do.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 16):
I think the A400M has a chance in high number for the US

I think if any agency were to obtain a A400M, it would be the USCG first. The A400 has higher enroute speed than the HC-130H/J, designed for low level operations, designed for refuelling helicopters, and also a much longer time on station or search radius compared to the HC-130H/J.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
The C17 hauls twice as much (or more) for not a whole lot more money per frame.

Most payloads the C-17 take are not "twice as much (or more)" of an A400M load. The life cycle costs of the A400M I suspect will be much lower than the C-17.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
Its even possibly cheaper per frame if you look at the costs to introduce the A400M type vs mere addon order of the C17.

If they were not to look at the life cycle and MILCON costs, and assume a very small fleet of A400Ms, such a statement could be valid.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 15932 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Most payloads the C-17 take are not "twice as much (or more)" of an A400M load

Depends on what your doing. If you need to fly 5,500NM unrefueled... The C17 can do it with 20tons (english) of cargo and the A400M doesn't have the range to do it with 0lbs of payload. Thats if they meet the specs promised at the program launch

At the 30tonne (metric tons) payload thats near the A400M's maximum it flys 2,400nm. At 2,400nm range the C17 is listed as carrying a mere 76.66 tonne. So its still more than 2x the cargo at the far end of the wieght chart.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
If they were not to look at the life cycle and MILCON costs, and assume a very small fleet of A400Ms, such a statement could be valid.

Please ignore the fact that to the USAF the C17 already has these costs paid so additional frames do not incur these costs. You would be correct that one should account for both if the user has neither in service, but when one has a type already in service, accounting for costs already paid is foolish when looking at all options going forward. If you own a taxi cab company and already have 1000 crownvics do you buy 10 taxis of a new type just because they might be 10% cheaper to run... ignoring the fact that you have to pay huge money right now to train your drivers, mechanics, parts people, get the custom taxi conversion designed, said conversion done, etc. No fleet operator regardless of what kind of fleet they have is going to add in past costs that no longer apply. They will however apply any future costs to any bids.

OK well the idiots in military procurment often are bad at properly accounting for the true cost of a system and will ignore much of the costs of aquiring a new type till it shows up and suddenly money has to be paid so they can actualy use the shiny new hardware.

Regardless, I fail to see how the lifetime costs can be assumed to automaticly be lower for the A400M since they want to integrate many systems that are useless for cargo hauling, yet increase the operating costs of the airplane. I also fail to see how its certain given the C17 has proven to be a solid airplane in use. The A400 has only proven its going to be way overwieght with questions lingering about the engines being worth anything at all.


On a side note
Be real interesting if Pratt can deliver a cost effective GTF for Boeing to use for thier idea of a shorter body tactical C17. Insane range or loiter time depening on needs, and would share enough parts to keep the cost within the window needed to kill the A400M in any possible RFP. I personaly think a longer C17 with updated engines would be the way to go to generate new USAF orders but I don't see Pratt getting anywhere near the thrust rating required for one in a GTF, as they already have way to many projects needing thier attention.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 15923 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Be real interesting if Pratt can deliver a cost effective GTF for Boeing to use for thier idea of a shorter body tactical C17

No, not for the shorter body version, but for the normal version!!!


The C17 has a very old engines, many people don´t know, but it is the B757-engine PW2000, which is 1980s technology.


A GTF would offer much lower fuelburn for the current C17!

[Edited 2010-09-12 03:20:03]

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 15918 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Depends on what your doing.

True, just like the C-5 has a paper payload capacity twice that of the C-17, rarely will it ever carry such loads. From what I understand C-17s are being limited to around 40 tonnes where possible to extend the life of the airframes.

Sure some C-17s are needed, and the mobility plan says that number is 180. I remember reading in a CRS report to congress saying that the average payload taken by C-17s in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom was under 20 tonnes.

You can task a C-17 to take half a C-130 load, sure it will get the job done if the airport is big enough and the runway is dry, not trying to do paratroops in formation etc, but the airframe is not an infinite resource, and every tasking reduces its life, and means replacement will be needed sooner.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
I fail to see how the lifetime costs can be assumed to automatically be lower for the A400M since they want to integrate many systems that are useless for cargo hauling

I take it you are referring to air to air refuelling capability. It is not that difficult to have an optimum system designed in on a clean sheet design, I am sure that is the assessment the KC-390 team also made.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The A400 has only proven its going to be way overwieght with questions lingering about the engines being worth anything at all.

You provided no proof of that at all with that statement. The A400M flight testing, which is ahead of schedule, has determined that the engines are performing better than specification. The chief test pilot on the A400M gave some interviews on the aircraft at ILA and Farnborough (available on the net) revealing that the airframe/engine combination is performing very well.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
On a side note

Sounds like advocating billions in R&D to modify an existing airframe, that is not optimised for those changes.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7621 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 15874 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled
Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
I think if any agency were to obtain a A400M, it would be the USCG first. The A400 has higher enroute speed than the HC-130H/J, designed for low level operations, designed for refuelling helicopters, and also a much longer time on station or search radius compared to the HC-130H/J.

Two examples of what I call "marketing" a product, to customers whose mode of operation are not presently suited to the product so would have to be severly adjusted.

Marines are amphibious forces, regardless of what the Pentagon and DOD have done in the last 5 to 10 years turning them into a relief Army manpower and Navy supplemental pilots, the bulk of their equipment has been built up over much more decades. Ships to move them across the pond, which also bring a lot more equipment at a cheaper cost than a fleet of A400M, numerous helicopters with slings to position equipment and tankers to fuel their helicopters and a/c.
Since the A400M does much more than their current C-130's adjustments must be made to cater for the increased capabilities of the a/c, reminds me of another purchase now being considered by another service.

The US Coast Guard one of their functions is patrol, another is search and rescue, using A400Ms for longer patrols is fine, question is how many do they need?
On the search and rescue front they took a hit when they retired their long range helicopters and replaced them with Blackhawks and the shorter range H-65 Dolphin, it meant that their surface fleet needed adjustments to either get out there quicker or stay out there longer.
Now they have problems replacing the high endurance cutters, certainely a longer range patrol a/c will let them go out even further, but if assistance is required, it must be of the kind where dropping supplies is sufficient.
A question I would ask of Coast Guard procedures, do their C-130's carry "swimmers" and do they deploy them when surface ships are hours away?
I'll see what google turns up.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 15866 times:

The USCG currently has some 33 HC-130H/Js they use for various missions. But they do not have the air refueling or CSAR missions the USAF HC-130N/P/Js have.

The USCG HC-130H/Js do not have the capability to deploy USCG Swimmers. But they will enter a holding pattern over a rescue site until USCG hilos, or cutters can get to the area.

The Coast Guard Swimmers can only deploy from hilos and cutters, they are not parachute qualified.


25 Post contains images par13del : Just completed reading a few articles on the history and evolution of the capabilty. My question remains, the greater range of the A400M will equate
26 474218 : I am not sure what you are implying? In the past Lockheed proposed a "twin engine" C-130, a amphibious C-130, ASW C-130's, AWAC, C-130's and the list
27 wingman : I would add a third condition to 328's first two: 3. When France and Germany buy 50 C-17s Buy some stuff from us and we'll reciprocate. Until then let
28 columba : That would be a bit too much for France and Germany but I agree both countries did not buy any US made planes in the past but this has changed and wi
29 Galaxy5007 : If you are talking about weight; thats true; but as far as cargo capacity; thats totally false. The majority of missions over the pond have a full lo
30 Post contains links Zeke : The time available on station for the A400M is a fair bit more, it should had 1000-2000 nm more range, or another way to look at it, that much additi
31 KC135TopBoom : Zeke is right, I believe the LM program is internaly called the C-130X. You are right, the USCG does not fly any version of the Lear Jet, it is the H
32 par13del : My mistake, Falcons. No dispute on the additional time on station, the fuel offload I disregarded as a capability they would not need, if selected, t
33 Post contains links and images keesje : It seems to become a little more truth the more this a.net myth is repeated. Many times have I googled up the prices the Dod, Australians, RAF, Arabs
34 KC135TopBoom : Not taking your own advice? Time and time again, many here have proven the flyaway cost of the C-17 and A-400 are at, or near the same. You just deny
35 474218 : The point was that Lockheed is always looking at way to improve the capability of their airframes and the it has nothing to do with the A-400M!
36 Galaxy5007 : Personally; I think B and LM are looking at that sized aircraft to steal the A400M orders away and kill the competition...
37 Zeke : No they have not, I have previously shown on other threads that price paid by Malaysia and South Africa included a significant level of spares, if yo
38 474218 : How could the DoD cancel the C-130J "all together"? The C-130J was developed at "company expense" ie, Lockheed's money. The RAF was the launch custom
39 Post contains links keesje : Sure. Just another recent price indication, India (waiting to be ignored/denied). http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...-airlifter/articleshow/61550
40 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, is the A-400 program an absolute disaster?
41 Post contains images 328JET : No US made planes? What about: - S61 - CH53 - Bell UH 1 - P3 Orion - Boeing 707s - F104s - F4s etc...
42 keesje : For some a year before entry into service would be early to conclude a program is a disaster, for others not.
43 kanban : OK everybody has their story on C-17 purchase price versus the A400M.. there seem to be several A400M prices.. one for the participant customers (Brit
44 Post contains links keesje : 2008: Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-c17.htm http://www.airliners.net/aviat
45 Post contains links Lumberton : How much of an overrun? 5 billion euros per one source; 11 billion per another. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...including-a400m-to-save-costs.
46 kanban : First I erred in my original question... I intended to look at purchase price.. not manufacturer cost... OK the C-17 purchase price appears to be wel
47 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The costs of 170 A-400s, at 25B Euros, averages 147.05M Euros. The costs of 170 A-400s, at 32B Euros, averages 188.23M Euros The USAF costs for a C-1
48 kanban : [quote=KC135TopBoom,reply=47] Funny how when we have actual numbers a lot of preconceptions vanish..... thanks. and I still believe EADS either will b
49 KC135TopBoom : You are right, EADS will be asking for more money per airplane. They will not eat any losses. But, you may find some here who will dispute the actual
50 Post contains links and images keesje : 1998.. Are you serious? 2009: $300M per aircraft. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLO58161920090224 I think all the GAO reports are unpopular for s
51 KC135TopBoom : that is $1.17B USD for the 4 C-17s, and includes the training, spares, and maintnenace package, and it is old news for the UAE order. The June 2010 US
52 Post contains links Zeke : The Pentagon called for the cancellation of the C-130J on December 23, 2004 due to numerous deficiencies, see the third page of this pdf http://www.p
53 KC135TopBoom : Correct, but it is difficult to nail down the additional costs of spares, etc. I believe the $183.81M to $235.29M for the A-400 price is a per unit p
54 474218 : Where do I start: 1. The first link you provided does not work. 2. The second link is to a "far left web site" that has nothing good to say about any
55 Post contains links Zeke : The 130 million from the Malaysian Government already provided. I KNOW you want to believe some figure 100 million more, but you have shown NO figure
56 474218 : But it does not say the DoD was "cancelling" the C-130J program, which is what you said. It says they suggested to "stop procurement". By the way the
57 Zeke : Obviously your counter view is that the DoD never considered cancelling the C-130J. What is a PC way you would prefer it phrased ?
58 kanban : because the support packages, including spares, vary tremendously between customers (just like commercial customers) because projected usage, budget,
59 474218 : I never said the DoD never thought of "cancelling" their "contracts" for the C-130J's. I know they did, I worked for Lockheed my son works for Lockhe
60 keesje : I guess that they only have to inform Long Beech to shrink the fuselage a few feet, tune up the engines and plug in an extra landing gear .. $5-7 Bil
61 KC135TopBoom : The contract is what it is, 8 new C-17s for an average price of $191.057M each, in 2010 dollars. Feel free to ignor the facts.
62 Post contains links Zeke : His numbers are flawed, and not backed up with facts. We have been over this many times before is many threads. Even the good ole USAF does not agree
63 474218 : For someone who claims to be a pilot you don't have a very good command of the English language! Contract and Project are two different things, sugge
64 kanban : semantics-- hair splitting.. A customer can cancel contracts which internally could be referred to a their program... that is different from a manufa
65 474218 : I said that about five times! You should address your comments to someone else!
66 Zeke : It is hair splitting, we see program cancellation used often enough, Robert Gates recommended earlier this year that the C-17 program be cancelled, t
67 KC135TopBoom : Hmmm, didn't I say that back in reply #47? Oh yeah, I did. Wrong, as usual. So you will have to prove this FY-2010 contract is budgeted in FY-1998 do
68 kanban : while I agree, the problem in this thread was the context that implied the program cancellation was all inclusive when it isn't... we agree so let's
69 Post contains links Zeke : You said in reply 47 that the price is now below 200 million, where the USAF says it is over 200 million in 1998 dollars, and when you apply inflatio
70 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, you are not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours. This is not worth it anymore arguing.
71 474218 : I think you have hit on why the price of the A400M is so high. I was always told you get things cheaper by eliminating the "middleman".
72 Zeke : Your previously claim that the C-17 cost is now below 200 million in 2010 dollars has clearly been refuted. You are unable to counter a report to con
73 474218 : You can believe that if you want, but adding an additional layer in the procurement process does not come without a cost.
74 Post contains images keesje :
75 Zeke : I agree it costs money to run OCCAR, but they would be saving their member nations far more than what the cost would be. For example the cost to Belg
76 rheinwaldner : Depends on how thick that layer or wrapper is... It can be very slim. E.g. OCCAR could be smaller than in size than the the accumulation of the singl
77 Galaxy5007 : Just my two cents regarding the C-17...I HATE when the ER term is used on C-17s...Especially since ALL of the C-17s have that mod now. Technically it
78 KC135TopBoom : Well, you are right about that. But with the USAF having airlift capability currently in the KC-135 at the low end, the C-130, and KC-10 in the middl
79 Post contains links and images keesje : http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...saf-asks-industry-to-answer-c.html Check the requirements against the A400M..
80 lumberton : From the article:
81 KC135TopBoom : Right now, JFTL is just a pipe dream. I suspect it will go no where, at least for a few years. The USAF can always buy additional C-130Js as replaceme
82 kanban : It won't happen no matter what pipe dream the proponents have... even under the guise of it's only fair as a trade issue. The USAF is has too many exp
83 par13del : Just to make sure I understand the comparison, we are comparing the cost of the C-17 program from inception and not the price that the US government
84 trex8 : no they rip them off, any FMS sale is a boondoggle for the DoD! these prices obviously include training/setup logistics/mx etc in many cases- from ds
85 NASCARAirforce : This isn't the Cold War anymore where America was buying every type of military plane in sight with 4 different types of planes serving the same purp
86 KC135TopBoom : Yes. The A-400 doesn't have any more landing/take-off performance that the C-17 or C-130J at similar percentages of loads and weights. Actually, 1970
87 Post contains links keesje : The soft runway performance of the C-17 has been an issue for 20 years. Tests, modifications and further testing is continuing, do a google. The C-17
88 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Keesje, you really need to keep up with how these things develope. Check out this 1 Dec. 2000 story in National Defense magazine. That was 10 years a
89 rheinwaldner : Except tankers? You mean that the multirole aspect is elementary today except for the tankers? I will remind you the next time a certain, excellent m
90 Post contains images Mortyman : I am pretty sure that the USA has sold more equipment to European countries over the last 5 decades than the USA is ever gonna buy from Europe .... In
91 jwenting : A400M will never fly...
92 NoUFO : ... under a star-spangled banner. Fixed that for you. You're welcome.
93 KPDX : It's flown... but I wouldn't be suprised if it never entered service. Seems not many people want to do with it.
94 kanban : What I'm refering to is just because a freighter fits in a niche between to existing freighters doesn't mean it needs to be purchased to fill that ni
95 Post contains links and images keesje : Check out this 2009 story. They are still testing and expanding SemiPrepared Runway Operations (SPRO). Unprepared soft was the original requirement b
96 Revelation : Actually, two years ago the British were trying to withdraw from the program, but Airbus threats of taking away the A350 work kept them on board. And
97 Post contains links and images keesje : 180 cheapy C-17s to replace Transall & C130s doing 5-20t short tactical missions.. I do not agree with your opinion. Nobody really wanted out. Th
98 Post contains images kanban : has something changed??? last I was aware of they were waiting for their deposit back so they could buy C-17s...
99 keesje : KC-17s I guess, moving a few pallets from Ysterplaat to Bloemfontein ? Why not they are dirt cheap !
100 KC135TopBoom : Those tests were performed in 2006, and some new testing started in 2009. What about South Africa? Thank you.
101 keesje : Ask the South African Air Force.. Imagine: an opposition members starts yelling the weapons are 2, 3 times as expensive as they should. A suprized, o
102 Revelation : I feel the UK would have gladly have walked away from A400M and spent the money on more C-130Js and C-17s which they are quite pleased with and fit t
103 11Bravo : Maybe,..... because the KC-390 is not made by a certain US company.
104 Post contains links keesje : The RAF will early phase out the problematic C130-J. Though & unexpected reality I guess. GKN Aerospace has delivered the 1000th nacelle for the
105 Revelation : You continuously slate the C-130J as being too small, so why would do you think this thing will have a better future than the proven C-130J? I think
106 Post contains links and images keesje : There is an upcoming requirement for something the C130 an C-17 don't do; medium weight vehicles like the Stryker (20-35t) from unprepared runways. T
107 Galaxy5007 : Seriously? I swear it is rare to see you post a source that is current on these forums...The cracks have been fixed a long time ago, and delays? The
108 Post contains links keesje : New cracks. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-dispute-on-production-future.html I sense a lot of hope here. JFTL won´t go away. Parties submit
109 Revelation : That'd be interesting if there were an upcoming budget increase too, but analysts highly doubt that. We've bought a generation's worth of C-17s and C
110 UH60FtRucker : You still have not explained where the $$$ will come from. A minimum DoD budget cut of 10% is coming, but as we're talking about in another on-going
111 Post contains links Revelation : So did Baghdad Bob. From today's news: U.S. to detail Pentagon savings, cuts: sources It doesn't look too good to me for any new big ticket items. Ye
112 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : Got proof? If the RAF is unhappy with the C-130J/J-30, why are they keeping them for at least another 12 years? You do know the C-130J and/or C-130J-
113 Revelation : The article in #111 suggests the Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (last vestige of the FCS program) and a medium air-to-air missile being develo
114 Post contains images keesje : He TopBoom, I do not understand, is the NYT, BBC or Wiki not a reliable source ? It depends I guess.. I think the C-130 being the only deal in town a
115 Post contains images Klaus : I would guess there'd be a combination of factors: - A400Ms might get loaned/chartered out by the early adopters for some specific US operations wher
116 Post contains links and images keesje : The existing C-130 fleet gets long in the teeth and was right sized 30-40 years ago. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/cargo/c130.html I
117 XT6Wagon : Still mostly rightsized today. The pricetag is the right size that is. I can't imagine trying to sell most nations on replacing C130 with A400M given
118 Burkhard : All nations will reduce their military forces over the next decades, and simply their equipment. This alone is enough reason for the USAF, with C130J
119 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : No need to imagine when that is no where near what happened. The story of the SAAF cancelation of the A-400 proved to be accurate by EADS itself when
120 Post contains links and images Revelation : And the A400M was right sized about 20 years ago, before the EU nations decided that they wanted to have a much larger global role, instead of just d
121 Post contains links and images keesje : It was TopBoom, but I guess you like your conspiracy theory much better http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...-when-sa-cancelled-deal-2010-04-14 The
122 Post contains images 328JET : Half the payload is perfect and as far as i know the A400M can be re-fueled enroute... (And europe is not so far away from afghanistan as the US is..
123 Revelation : It's barely adequate for todays IFVs when their armor is removed. It's clear any future IFVs will need to be much heavier. If you want to carry one o
124 Post contains links and images keesje : Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker...parison_with_contemporary_vehicles It would be necessary to deploy four A400M transporters to carry thre
125 KC135TopBoom : The guy who wrote this story, Keith Cambell; Campbell is a senior contributing editor at Creamer Media. He holds a master's degree in international r
126 Post contains links moderators : Please continue the discussion here: General A400M Discussion Thread (by moderators Jan 8 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) Any posts that
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Wing Cracks Ground One-third Of Usaf A-10s posted Fri Oct 3 2008 14:59:28 by PhilSquares
What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 01:09:56 by 747400sp
How To Read Registration Of Usaf Aircraft? posted Wed Aug 1 2001 14:38:01 by Blackened
Nat'l Museum Of The Usaf Partial Gallery Closing posted Thu Nov 13 2008 03:37:56 by Broke
New C-17 And C-130 Dim A400M & Usaf Chance posted Thu Jul 10 2008 20:52:40 by CX747
Fate Of "last" (?) 764, Build As E-10 For Usaf? posted Mon Mar 17 2008 12:32:30 by Kaitak
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:03:23 by Keesje
Return Of The 767-400ER - Usaf Bird Assigned Line# posted Sat Jan 19 2008 12:09:11 by Stitch
National Museum Of The Usaf Behind The Scenes Tour posted Mon Sep 17 2007 16:27:37 by Broke
Video Of A400M's TP400-D6 Engine posted Thu Jul 27 2006 20:20:04 by RAPCON