747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12635 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?
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12632 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
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.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12559 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,"
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12520 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
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".
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16264 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12510 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.
epa001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12509 times:
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.
CMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12501 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.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12485 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?
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12467 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11714 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 12359 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.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2468 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12341 times:
gone are the days of 'we have to have some because they exist', and we'll figure out it's purpose later...
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12320 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:
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12118 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.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12075 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.
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
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12051 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.
328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12042 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!
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.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11994 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11714 posts, RR: 52 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11986 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 keesje: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...saf-asks-industry-to-answer-c.html Check the requirements against the A400M..
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moderators: Please continue the discussion here: General A400M Discussion Thread (by moderators Jan 8 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) Any posts that
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Nov 2007, 42 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
