Bogi From United Arab Emirates, joined Sep 2001, 461 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15734 times:
Best opportunities for export?
Quote: “We are in a segment of the market where we have no competitors and we foresee no competitors for the next ten years,” stated Tentor.
“Strategic airlifters cannot use unpaved airstrips. Tactical transporters cannot carry outsize loads. This year, we are starting negotiations with a number of possible customers. We see market opportunities in Asia, the Middle East, Australasia and South America. And what of the US? They have a huge gap between the [Boeing] C-17 and the [Lockheed Martin] C-130J, and they have no project to fill that. So, we see an opportunity in the US in the medium to long term. Our market forecast is to export 400 A400Ms over the next 30 years. It’s a conservative estimate. It’s been a long and winding road, but we are here!”.
cmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 15507 times:
Well the market for the high end C-17 could be running out of steam while the C-130 just doesn't get there for those same shoppers. Sort of like a choice between a 8 ton truck or a 3 ton truck when what you really need is a 5 tonner. You may want the 8 ton version but can't justify it and the 3 ton may not get the job done. The EU picked the size and capability to avoid a head to head with the C-17 and C-130.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15374 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 4): Plus I think the Ukranians are still sitting on the plans or the AN-70 somewhere
That's nice, have any been delivered to an operator yet? The AN-70 flew years before the A400M after all. The French AF have their first, the RAF get's their first A400M next year. Not bad for an aircraft the usual suspects on here called 'vaporware' even when the first aircraft were being built.
Have any A400M's crashed in the development program?
Your description of the A400M matches exactly what was said about the C-17 in the late 1990's. That was a messed up program but look at it now.
How many times did it come close to being cancelled outright?
Then the C-130J, years to get it properly operational after it was first delivered to the early customers.
The double standards here from some about this subject is astonishing and a bit odd.
A400M for some reason really touches a nerve. Why?
But I agree that the Brazilian aircraft is a threat - to C-130J sales.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 74 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15373 times:
Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
Agree, I especially like the comment that strat airlifters cannot use unpaved airstrips.
Those strips are still engineered, graded, rolled etc, the A400M can land of what people would consider to be soft ground, CBR4 surface (not just the subgrade), which means 4% of the strength of crushed limestone. That sort of surface it would be difficult to even drive a 2WD vehicle. A C17 could not operate out of those conditions.
To anyone that is reasonable, the C17 and A400M have the same numbers of wheels with different weights, one would expect a difference,
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 755 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15127 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 6): Those strips are still engineered, graded, rolled etc, the A400M can land of what people would consider to be soft ground, CBR4 surface (not just the subgrade), which means 4% of the strength of crushed limestone. That sort of surface it would be difficult to even drive a 2WD vehicle. A C17 could not operate out of those conditions.
My issue is not with the capability but with the salesmanship.
It is pretty clear the C-17, IL-76 have the capability to land on unpaved airstrips, not only from the images above but, and I do not claim in anyway to be an expert on this, from a quick review of the following C-17 document. http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf There is a capability to land on CBR4 surfaces, albeit at very light loads and a limited number of times. I am sure the A400 would have similar restrictions but perhaps not as extreme.
I have no issue with the A400 program, it will be a good fit for a number of nations, but I don't think it is the ultimate or perfect size many claim it to be, including Airbus Military president and CEO Domingo Ureña. A400 operators will still need to use smaller tactical transports, such as the CN235, and if you need to move something a long way A400 operators will still require strategic transports, either owned or leased.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 865 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 14742 times:
Quoting Bogi (Thread starter): They have a huge gap between the [Boeing] C-17 and the [Lockheed Martin] C-130J, and they have no project to fill that.
I know this is not your quote but I think this point is vastly overblown in regards to the A400M. There are capability gaps and then there are appearance gaps. This, in my view, is much more the later than the former. While the C-130's deficiencies delivering vehicles is well known that is a small part of its mission set really. More than anything it is an airborne truck for hauling supplies around the theater of conflict. And the most important thing for trucks is that they run and are reasonably priced.
For the US market the key question is not if there is a capability gap in the C-130/C-17 pair but operationally what would the US (or anyone else operating the C-130/C-17 combo) gain by either adding A400M's to the mix or by replacing their C-130's with them. That is a really hard question to answer. I have yet to see a good answer. If you are just looking to supplement you need a pretty compelling reason to spend a lot of money to put a new aircraft into that gap. I have no doubt that in theory the Army would love to have another air lifter. But ask them if they would rather make it work with the C-130's and C-17's or if they want to give up their new combat vehicles or AH-64 upgrades to pay for it and I bet their tune changes.
Keep in mind that the cost of replacing the C-130 with A400M's for the USAF would be something around $40-$60 billion dollars. One can make a good logical argument that replacing the C-130 with A400M would add capability but I am not sure one can cost justify it.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29520 posts, RR: 59 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14017 times:
Lockheed has been suggesting mods or updates for decades. Every aircraft company does that. It keeps the designers busy.
At one point there was a twin engine shrink of the C-130 proposed.
The last size increase I remember hearing about was a proposal to move the landing gear outside the aircraft. That would eliminate the two big square boxes midway down the cabin which the mains retract into.
This wouldn't chance the floor width of the herk but the cabin would be wider about two thee feet up the sides.so you could fit more circular lads in it.
That proposal is probably ten intern years old by now.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
mrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13993 times:
this is my first post on A-Net although I've been an avid reader for several years.
The A400M is perhaps somewhat expensive but it's not more expensive than the C17 and only marginally more so than the C130J.
The A400M carries more than 90% of NATO vehicles.
The A400M's detractors often point to the long delays suffered by the progamme. The C17 almost didn't make it. How long did it take LM to put new engines and avionics onto an airframe that is nothing less than utterly mature?
The C17 isn't really a tactical plane. At a push it can land on unpaved strips but it will often require repairs afterwards. It's ability to carry an actual payload to a CBR6 strip with fuel for the return leg is limited. The A400M does better.
The USAF has spent considerable sums maintaining the C17 in Afghanistan. Turboprops for tactical, turbofans for strategic.
I would also like to point out that Airbus has considerable experience with regard to the design, manufacture and sustainment of military transports.
To all those who revel in trashing the A400M I urge you to read the following:
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13908 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 13): At one point there was a twin engine shrink of the C-130 proposed.
I remember seeing something about that, in the late 1970's? Aimed at the civil cargo market IIRC.
The first airshow i went to was at RAF Greenham Common in 1979, a huge event, which included celebrating 25 years since the first C-130 flew, they had 25 of them lined up, from all over the world, all sorts of versions.
Pretty certain I saw the twin C-130 idea in the official program for the show, in a Lockheed advert.
Quote: Kazakhstan is considering the acquisition of two A400M military transport aircraft and establishing a maintenance and service facility for Airbus Military aircraft, the Kazakhstani defence ministry announced in early July.
The official communiqué was published shortly after visits to the former Soviet republic by the head of Airbus Military, Domingo Ureña-Raso, who met with the Kazakhstan defence minister, Adilbek Dzhaksybekov, and the Spanish defence minister, Pedro Morenes.
The RAF has 7 C17s in service. They paid 200 million Pounds for the seventh plane that they ordered later.
The countries that have ordered the C130J have paid an average programme unit cost of $142 million. Some paid more, some paid a little less.
The RAF will be paying a programme unit price of about $200million for it's 22 A400Ms. All military planes are expensive.
EADS Casa and the companies that comprised the Transport Allianz (Transall) have delivered just over 1000 C212, CN235; CN295 and C160 planes to many customers on all continents. They have a fair idea of what they're doing.
The KC390 has turbofans. I understand why- integrating a turbofan onto a wing is a walk in the park. Integrating turboprops is anything but. Most C130 customers rarely conduct tactical landings with max or near max payloads. Embraer have stated that their plane should be considered by these countries. It is not the right plane for tactical missions. It cannot replace a C130 or C160
For better or for worse modern infantry carriers are trending at 20 tons plus. The A400M will handle those weights on CBR 6 without chewing up the strip after a handful of passes.
@ L-188. The twin engined C130 was realised long ago. It's called the C160
Seriously, the C160 has a slightly larger cargo hold than the C130. It'll carry 16 tons half the distance that the C130 will. It's undercarriage is miles better though.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 865 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 hours ago) and read 13504 times:
Quoting mrg (Reply 22): The RAF has 7 C17s in service. They paid 200 million Pounds for the seventh plane that they ordered later.
The countries that have ordered the C130J have paid an average programme unit cost of $142 million. Some paid more, some paid a little less.
You still never answer the question posed. What cost basis are we working on? You quoted program cost for the C-17.
If we use program cost for the A400M then the UK is paying $227 million a copy according to the latest major projects report. So assuming that the partners try to recoup some of the R&D cost (which I would guess they would) an A400M is going to cost you about what a C-17 cost. Which is of course the problem.
Do you have a link for the capabilities and limitations of the A400M under a similar scenario?
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 23):
Again, the A400M is a fine aircraft technically. It just seems to have missed its business case pretty badly.
I agree, I don't see anyone trashing the airframe.
Quoting mrg (Reply 22): For better or for worse modern infantry carriers are trending at 20 tons plus. The A400M will handle those weights on CBR 6 without chewing up the strip after a handful of passes.
And the last few wars have proven how inefficient the capability to transport a tank on a C-17 is. Sure it can do it, but would you do it? For instance, the weight of a Boxer AFV is approximately 34 tons. The following map indicates an A400M at that weight would probably be limited to 3500km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...with_distance_circles_to_paris.svg So at the loading weights you are suggesting, the A400M becomes a tactical transport. You still need the cargo ships/Strat air transports to carry the vehicles to a forward location before you can effectively use the A400M.
Then you have the practicality of transporting AFVs in a tactical or strategic air transport. Unpaved strips mean lighter landing weights and you can only carry one vehicle in each A400M (or C-130 if possible or C-17). Given the ammo, fuel, food and spares requirements for deploying AFVs and their associated troops you better make sure you can supply the vehicles with what they require after your transport fleet positions them.
Pretty sure in Mali the French Air Force flew into hardened paved strips and moved vehicles overland from there.
25 mrg: @BigJKU I don't have exact prices. I don't think anybody does actually. The point I'm seemingly unsuccessfully trying to make is that the A400M is not
26 BigJKU: @MRG Again, I have never disputed that the A400M has capabilities. The problem with it is that while it can do the things you are arguing for I don't
27 mrg: The A400M from a European perspective: we don't have any ambition to transport MBTs to distant parts of the world. Since the end of the Cold War many
28 BigJKU: Unless you need to move a lot of stuff. I actually hate the British setup quite a bit. They have way to much money tied up in their transport/tanker
29 mrg: I think you're being too harsh on the Brits. OK, not being able to refuel boom receivers like the C17, F16 an French Sentries is a bit whacky. It's a
30 astuteman: Do we have any links for that? Which suggests that the C17 at last has some company ... Rgds
31 GDB: That's a result of having to adapt to a high tempo operation as much as procurement issues. C-17 ( just 4) were intially leased to provide a short te