Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tentor: A400M No Competitors For The Next 10 Years  
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 20829 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!”.
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...gins-a400m-deliveries-2013-07-12-1

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20640 times:

The man needs to lay off the Drugs.

The C-130, .C-17 and that stretched Il-76 with the Perm fans are all existing competitors.

Not to mention that airlifted Embrarer was working.

His comments ate just a sales pitched for and overpriced, unproven and delayed aircraft.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20625 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
The man needs to lay off the Drugs.

Agree, I especially like the comment that strat airlifters cannot use unpaved airstrips.



http://www.netting.it/sfondi/images/grandi/c17.jpg


Heck, the C-17 can even land on an aircraft carrier  


User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20604 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.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20567 times:

Plus I think the Ukranians are still sitting on the plans or the AN-70 somewhere


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20471 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.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20469 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
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 20224 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.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3547 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 20187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
but I don't think it is the ultimate or perfect size many claim it to be

Have you ever heard a military contractor say their product wasn't the best thing for everybody in all situations.. They all stretch the truth for sales.

And I agree the plane has it's uses and capabilities.. just maybe not all to the full extent claimed.. can think of some other programs that are much the same way..


User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 19868 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
Heck, the C-17 can even land on an aircraft carrier



So can the C-130, and actually has:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Flatley_III
He is the son of the Namesake for the ship I was stationed on, USS Flatley FFG-21, and I met him twice, as I was his driver for change of commands. Shame I didn't know he did at the time. Nice guy.

Dan in Jupiter

[Edited 2013-07-15 07:02:29]

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 880 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 19838 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.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19783 times:

I don't think that the USAF will ever buy the A400M, or that they need to.
A gap doesn't matter so much when your fleets are counted in three figures!

But Airbus Military would be remiss not to try!


User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 19142 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Lockheed was working on a bigger version of the C-130.

Have any of my fellow A.netter's heard about this, shed any light on it?

Thanks,

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 19113 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.
User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 19089 times:

Hi all,
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:

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...taPrefix=html&identifier=ADA430864


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mrg (Reply 14):

Aircraft operating out of unpaved strips often require repairs regardless of type. Doors and antennas especially seem to take a beating, not to mention coatings.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19004 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.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12542 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18955 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 14):
The A400M carries more than 90% of NATO vehicles.

Not sure of what to make of such a statistic. One interpretation could be that A400M carries 100% of NATO's bicycles and 0% of NATO's main battle tanks.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18951 times:

Kazakhstan is mulling over buying a pair A400M's:
http://www.janes.com/article/24612/k...stan-mulls-a400m-orders-more-c295s

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.


User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18934 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 12):
I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Lockheed was working on a bigger version of the C-130.

Have any of my fellow A.netter's heard about this, shed any light on it?

The C-130XL was a white paper back in 2008. I believe the concept has been canned by now.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...er-larger-c-130xl-to-fight-316314/

Meanwhile, the A-400M does have competition now, the KC-390. Boeing has been trying to sell the KC-390 to the USAF for about a year now.

AF.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.ihs.com/events/exhibition...y-10/Boeing-touts-KC-390-USAF.aspx

Quoting mrg (Reply 14):
I would also like to point out that Airbus has considerable experience with regard to the design, manufacture and sustainment of military transports.

Where? BTW welcome to a.net.

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15):
Aircraft operating out of unpaved strips often require repairs regardless of type. Doors and antennas especially seem to take a beating, not to mention coatings.

Correct. The A-400M did have minor damage when it was tested on the gravel strip they set up for it.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 880 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 18688 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 14):
The A400M is perhaps somewhat expensive but it's not more expensive than the C17 and only marginally more so than the C130J.

Using what cost metrics?


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 18691 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15):
Aircraft operating out of unpaved strips often require repairs regardless of type. Doors and antennas especially seem to take a beating, not to mention coatings.

This is absolutely true. Some years ago a C-17 from our base was doing some of those gravel landings and when it returned home there was extensive damage to the belly and landing gear wells.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 18630 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15):

Sure, landing on unprepared strips is punishing but the C130 doesn't require the same attention after a tactical landing as does a C17- neither does the strip.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):

The correct interpretation is that the A400M will carry >90% of vehicles listed in NATO's TO&E.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 20):

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.


I know some of you contemplate the AN-70 in your free time. Take a look at how narrow the undercarriage track is.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Anton...d=f87b6cde0cc403fceba7692dddbb62b2

Did anyone download the pdf linked in my first post. Please do. It's most instructive.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 880 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18599 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.

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl...jor-Projects-full-report-Vol-1.pdf

Again, the A400M is a fine aircraft technically. It just seems to have missed its business case pretty badly.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18567 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 22):
Did anyone download the pdf linked in my first post. Please do. It's most instructive.

I'm not sure how your linked PDF is relevant to explaining the capabilities of the A400? The document provides nothing new to the info from the link I quoted.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf

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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
32 Post contains links mrg : http://www.aeroweb-fr.net/uploads/media/large/2012/21/1929.jpg http://www.aeroweb-fr.net/uploads/media/large/2012/21/1927.jpg http://www.flightglobal.
33 KC135TopBoom : Correct But Germany has the A-310MRTT to handle the fast jets. France has KC-135s, and will replace them with the A-330MRTT, so neither country will
34 fridgmus : That's what cargo parachutes are for!
35 Confuscius : ...or LAPES for heavier load.
36 BigJKU : Brits are not buying refueling kits for their A400M's because of their dumb air tanker deal. That is a huge part of my problem with their whole appro
37 Max Q : I read an article not too long ago that stated the RAF C130J's would be phased out as the A400's arrive.
38 r2rho : IMO the C-17 and C-130 can be quite complemetary. Yes, the A400M could fill the space in between, but is there really a case to introduce a new type?
39 Ozair : I'd argue Australia is a small air force and does very well out of the combination but this probably has more to do with the geographical location th
40 Revelation : I wouldn't classify A400M as a do-it-all aircraft in this context, because it can't land places C130 can and it can't carry loads that the C-17 can.
41 GDB : While I do agree that the tanker deal was dumb (and not untypical, way beyond the RAF or military), it likely won't survive an event that calls for a
42 Revelation : It is a compliment, but there's the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. It's all about engineering trade-offs, or some would
43 mrg : The A400M will land AND take off (with noteworthy payload) from any CBR 4 or 6 strip that a C-130J will. It flies considerably faster, higher and far
44 Revelation : I was thinking more about takeoff distance and the specs I see on wiki say: C-130J: Takeoff distance: 3,127 ft (953 m) at 155,000 lb (70,300 kg) gros
45 Max Q : The A400 is a superb Aircraft by any standard, and as good as the C130 is it's being left behind.
46 wingman : The thing that's so nice about the A400 is that for the first time in a long time it will allow some role reversal in future allied military operation
47 KC135TopBoom : At this rate, the RAF C-130Js will have a normal aged retirement. Which standards are those? Where and when has it proven itself in the 'field' or in
48 11Bravo : It may not have any serious competition for the next decade. Then again, there may not really be any market for the next decade either. Where are the
49 Beta : The idea that somehow the airlift capacity of the UK, Germany, Spain, France could "role-reverse," take-over of any sort from the USAF airlifts is fa
50 mrg : It's quite simple really. You take a desired payload and fly it somewhere. You measure the fuelburn. This then allows you to calculate range. It's wi
51 Revelation : I think that has to be a major worry for the program. Even the original orders have been cut back by the "rich" European nations and South Africa has
52 mrg : Given that Germany and Spain together will be actively seeking to place a combined total of around 25 of their own commitments with other airforces th
53 sweair : I still think EU-air forces should buy the last 10-15 C17s off the FAL to pool like NATO does. That would give this continent a bit more power behind
54 Post contains images glideslope : None.
55 par13del : The European nations are buying an a/c that does have the capability to transport the majority of their military vehicles, for me the bigger question
56 mrg : That's a a lot planes to keep busy. Three C-17s and two AN-124s would be enough. North Africa mostly. The Arab Spring is getting nowhere quick. That,
57 redflyer : If the A400M line stays open for the foreseeable future (meaning beyond the ~180 orders garnered so far), I could see the USAF ordering some eventual
58 Beta : In this day and age of defense budget squeeze in the tune of $1/2 T in next decade, chances of the USAF ever buys the A400M is practically zero. Keep
59 Revelation : I see where you are coming from and to varying degrees have argued some of the same points in the past. I think it's good to put yourself into the min
60 redflyer : I'm not so sure the USAF didn't want them as much as they weren't a priority for the USAF in an era of tight budgets. They seem to have put them to g
61 kanban : Like every military, they want anything that might give them an edge.. the question is do they need them.. and that answer in today's environment is
62 Post contains links Revelation : Not sure that's the situation we're considering. A short while after the C-17 line closes, it can't be economically resurrected, just like the 757 li
63 kanban : Before the real estate bust, the property was worth more to Boeings bottom line than continuing low rate production.. I think the long lead materials
64 Post contains links Bogi : Rafael Tentor, Airbus Military's senior vice president program dreams or sees? http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs...no-competition-for-400m-even-in-the
65 Revelation : I found the following bits interesting: Anyone else find it ironic that Airbus Marketing is using as an example a military operation A400M should have
66 autothrust : The A400M will feature operating costs similar to the C-130 while lifting more cargo, flying it faster and further. It has the most advanced avionics
67 11Bravo : I don't think there is much criticism aimed at the technical capabilities or quality of the A400M. Rather the "detractors", as you term them, are poi
68 autothrust : The reason why Spain and Germany reduced the order has only to do with the financial crisis. Anyone who claims anything else is just plain wrong. The
69 KiwiRob : Why does someone need to buy those aircraft, many nations would rather deal with Airbus directly rather than buy brandnew secondhand transports from
70 jollo : Aw, c'mon, nobody dissed the a/c per se *in this thread*, at least not yet. As for Aribus marketing, I do agree it sounds a bit lame. No competitors?
71 DTW2HYD : Do they have a target customer list? China may be. India is looking to replace 55 x AN32s. But it will not before another decade. They seem to very ha
72 kanban : there is a long history of both countries and manufacturers designing and building to anticipated requirements that failed to develop or took longer t
73 jollo : If I were Tentor, I'd stick to something along the lines of: Dear customer, when you buy our A400M instead of a C-130J you pay double the procurement
74 wingman : I bet there are plenty of folks in the US Air Force that would LOVE to have 100 of these things, or more. And probably 250 Typhoons too.
75 KiwiRob : I would bet on it that New Zealand will place an order for 4-5 A400's, the LEP program for the C130's only gave them a few additional years, the NZ G
76 DTW2HYD : Is Airbus planning a civilian version of A400M? Sounds like a great candidate for developing world without infrastructure. USAF is a great candidate,
77 Post contains images cargotanker : If given an option, those folks would most likely prefer 100 C-17s or a mix of 100 C-17s and C-130Js. And we'd probably take F-15SEs or F-22s over th
78 mrg : The Indians paid $1.1 Billion for their six-plane aquisition. $183 Million per plane The Canadians- already c130 user- paid $1.4 Billion for 17 plane
79 Ozair : Agree, for smaller nations who will only choose one aircraft for their transport fleet the A400 is a great choice. Saying that, a few CN-235s might a
80 Max Q : Thing is, they are all superb Aircraft, It's interesting that in this era we have a surplus of incredibly capable tactical and strategic transports s
81 par13del : I am one of them, so since the a/c was not conceived with actual war in Europe as its defining features, moving vehicles around the EU by train in pe
82 DTW2HYD : Agreed, but as part of this deal LM producing C130 center wing box in India. India always want ~30% content sourced within the country, just like Chi
83 Revelation : From what I've read, it was conceived with thoughts of the Balkans conflicts in mind. In that case it makes a lot of sense: emphasis on short field p
84 kanban : Agreed, however in today's "win/lose" world there is no room for rational statements such as yours.
85 jollo : Not that I know. However, the plane is already civilian-certified (bringing the engine's FADEC up to civilian certification documentation standards c
86 Post contains links Bogi : http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...e78645-824a-48ae-9c3c-e2e3d8062bd9
87 mrg : I read with interest on defenseindustrydaily.com that the average flyaway unit cost of the C17 over the entire programme is $201 Million rising to a w
88 kanban : kind of a moot point now that the C-17 is going out of production..
89 Post contains links Revelation : I suppose, but given that France is now considering dropping their A400M order from 50 to 35-40, I do not think Trentor will be in a mood to celebrat
90 kanban : maybe the French should sell then as sweetheart deals to former colonies
91 Post contains images mrg : You may be right
92 BigJKU : It will be interesting to see what impact the various resold A400m's will have on the market. I don't think France can cut their order so much as the
93 Revelation : I doubt they will be all that 'cheap'. The selling nations aren't going to want to lose tons of money on them: the whole point of not taking them up
94 Revelation : Food for thought: did France perhaps do too good a job dealing with the Mali situation? They pretty much proved that for a just cause they could get a
95 blrsea : The C130Js that India procured were the special forces version, not the base version. I believe the standard version is much cheaper compared to the
96 NeutronStar73 : How about ALL THE TIME? Remember with big loads you need some way to offload it. Getting to the APOD is one thing; getting your gear off and getting
97 mrg : The vehicles that the A400M was designed to carry deploy themselves. APCs and wheeled armed vehicles can travel hundreds of kilometers. Tanks cannot,
98 Post contains links Bogi : Continuous optimism: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_01_07_2014_p0-652340.xml&p=2
99 Revelation : What do you expect from the retiring head of EADS North America? A statement saying that Boeing's ability to get the KC-46A business shows that Airbu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Tentor: A400M No Competitors For The Next 10 Years
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...
Why No Military Name For The JT8-D? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:37:35 by 747400sp
Why No US Planes For The IAF posted Tue Feb 10 2004 09:57:01 by HAWK21M
End Of The Line For The Mig-21... posted Tue May 7 2013 07:57:30 by alberchico
Less Rafale But Reaper For The French Forces posted Mon Apr 29 2013 06:16:16 by Alsatian
What Is The Next Generation Strategic Airlifter? posted Tue Apr 16 2013 16:33:35 by TWA772LR
F35 Lithium-ion Batteries - No Plan For Change posted Sat Feb 16 2013 08:59:40 by chuchoteur
Columbia Disaster 10 Years Ago, Was Fate Known? posted Fri Feb 1 2013 17:30:42 by TheSultanOfWing
What Plane Is Likely To Replace The KC-10? posted Sun Jun 10 2012 08:02:02 by 747400sp
More Grief For The F-35... posted Thu Sep 1 2011 05:01:23 by JoeCanuck
Any Replacements For The C-5 Galaxy On The Horizon posted Thu Apr 21 2011 20:52:23 by 444Pilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format