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 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20900 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, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20711 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 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20696 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 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20675 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, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 20638 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, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20542 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, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20540 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 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 20295 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 offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 20258 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 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19939 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, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 19909 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, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 19854 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 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19213 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, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19184 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 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19160 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, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19121 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, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19075 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, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 19026 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, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 19022 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 offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 19005 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, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 18759 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, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 18762 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 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18701 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, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 18670 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 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 18638 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.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 18789 times:

@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 expensive compared to what else is out there.

There are some who routinely try to depict the A400 in the worst possible way. The costs are portrayed as being way and beyond those of it's competitors. And that it's tactical capability is somehow overlapped by it's competitors.
It's payload always compared to that of the MBT that the C17 would carry.
The C17 will indeed carry 70 tons- from one tarmac runway to another. It'll take 20 tons onto a CBR 6 runway 8 times before the strip needs regrading. The A400M will take 30 tons 40 times to the same strip.
The A400M will carry twice the load of the C130J at almost the speed of the C17 to LZ's that the C17 cannot access.

The Brits were not allowed to conduct tactical landings while they were leasing their C17s. There's a reason for that. The C17 doesn't handle that kind of treatment well. It's a great plane for strategic lift.

During the Mali operation the loads carried by participating C17s were delivered 900 Km away from where they were actually needed.

With regard to my linked pdf about the C-17 in Afghanistan did anyone read about the brownouts INSIDE the cockpit??

The A400M wasn't designed to suit a business case. Not many military aircraft are.

@ KC135TOPBOOM you said "Correct. The A-400M did have minor damage when it was tested on the gravel strip they set up for it." Would you care to elaborate?
I'm only aware of the incident at Cottbus-Drewitz where the left MLG dug into the turf. It was neither gravel nor prepared. And the plane wasn't damaged.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 18773 times:

@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 see anyone making a case that they actually need or want to do those things for the most part. The US is more able to risk its C-17's from a cost/capability standpoint in unprepared landing strips than most European nations would be with the A400M. The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of the time the A400M will land at the same place C-17's are landing.

No one is trashing the airframe by any stretch. But the fact of the matter is that the A400M has not sold well outside its industrial partners to this point and has been in a lot of competitions. Most C-130J users will fly those aircraft for a long time yet. Had the A400M come in on time and on budget it might have won those orders but it didn't. It does not help prospects for keeping that line open that the German's openly are looking to sell some of their aircraft right away. Until those sell no one is going to buy full priced models off of EADS.

So it is not just posters trying to paint it in a bad light. Lots of potential buyers have looked at the A400M and then bought C-17's and C-130's.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 19099 times:

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 European NATO members have been involved in peace keeping missions and interventions in Eastern Europe, Africa and Afghanistan and even Iraq. The lessons learned included the need for heavier armoured vehicles capable of withstanding IEDs - armoured HUMVEEs and Land Rovers just don't cut it anymore.
The C130 and C160 can't carry the latest vehicle designs- no matter how modular you make them.

Refugee relief- we do quite a bit of it- entails flying supplies to hapless, pathetic victims of some man-made or natural tragedy who seldom gather near a runway. They're usually in the middle of a dustbowl somewhere. You want a turbo-prop for those tasks.

Germany doesn't have multiple transport types in it's inventory. It has the C160 which was manufactured decades ago. Having a mixed fleet of C130J and C17 isn't a realistic proposition for us. The Transall will be replaced by one type. It'll suit us.

The Brits will soon have a transport capability that'll be the envy of many. C17, A400M and C130J together with the A330 MRTT means they'll have all bases covered. You'll see: the A400M be be at the centre of their tactical lift capability.

If we'd gone for the Pratt engine you guys would buy it too  


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19068 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 27):

The Brits will soon have a transport capability that'll be the envy of many. C17, A400M and C130J together with the A330 MRTT means they'll have all bases covered. You'll see: the A400M be be at the centre of their tactical lift capability.

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 capabilities and it is an outright mess in my view. They have lots of platforms that are half utilized and frankly should be ashamed of the situation. Can't use their A400M's as tankers because of their A330 contract. Can't refuel their C-17's or RC-135's because of the tanker types. It is just a mess.

The German/French approach is good. They A400M will provide them good service as a single type. They can do the kind of things they want to do with it and if forced can also do tactical landings as well. For those kind of nations I like the platform.

Quoting mrg (Reply 27):
Refugee relief- we do quite a bit of it- entails flying supplies to hapless, pathetic victims of some man-made or natural tragedy who seldom gather near a runway. They're usually in the middle of a dustbowl somewhere. You want a turbo-prop for those tasks.

I will say this is somewhat idealistic. A lot of end user distribution is done by helicopters. Almost every nation has one more more airports that can take a large jet aircraft and the fixed wing assets usually land there and then supplies are moved around disaster areas by helicopters. No one is going to risk a landing in a crap field to bring MRE's to people with a $200 million airplane.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 18856 times:

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 glaring omission IMHO.
However, look at the Malian operation. The RAF was able to airlift heavy French equipment, albeit to a runway 500 miles away from where the stuff was actually needed. No European country on it's own can afford to have in it's airforce all the varied assets that you Yanks have. It's just not on. Right now though the Brits can bring a lot to the table. Libya and Mali I think will be a template for future combined ops- well UK/French led ones.

The A400M as a refueller will be most handy on operations that require helicopters and fast-jets to be refuelled. It'll do that mission far, far better than will the C130J.
The C130J on the other hand is great for Special Ops insertion and CSAR/ personnel extraction. Admittedly if the A400M had not experienced such delays the C130J would perhaps not have been procured.

In zones of ethnic strife those on the losing end are usually not in control of cities and major transport infrastructure. The Luftwaffe has over the last decades routinely delivered supplies to unprepared strips. The French too. Actually the French prefer to use their C160 for rough fields. The undercarriage is better than that of the C130. The A400M will do those tasks too.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10045 posts, RR: 96
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The A-400M did have minor damage when it was tested on the gravel strip they set up for it.

Do we have any links for that?

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 23):
Again, the A400M is a fine aircraft technically. It just seems to have missed its business case pretty badly.

Which suggests that the C17 at last has some company ...  

Rgds


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day ago) and read 18756 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 28):
I actually hate the British setup quite a bit. They have way to much money tied up in their transport/tanker capabilities and it is an outright mess in my view. They have lots of platforms that are half utilized and frankly should be ashamed of the situation. Can't use their A400M's as tankers because of their A330 contract. Can't refuel their C-17's or RC-135's because of the tanker types. It is just a mess.

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 term boost before numbers of what would become the A400M would be in service.
Post Sept 2001, the greatly expanded use of RAF transport assets would cause the C-17's to be brought and added to.
But the A400M would still be needed, since even the newer C-130J's, purchased back in the mid 1990's, had too many limitations. Besides that, the older 1960's built C-130K's needed replacement. The most worn out C-130K's had to be replaced sooner hence the C-130J buy, which was the only game in town at the time.

The C-130K fleet had not only seen long and very active service since the mid/late 1960's, many operations had been especially hard on the airframes. The long, in flight refuelled treks to the Falklands, a lot of unpaved strip operations in the first Gulf War to name two.
From the mid 1970's to the C-130J's and C-17's of the late 1990's/early 2000's, the C-130K fleet had to do it all.

All the above illustrates what has driven the yes rather messy set up the RAF now has, events.
The UK has long been the most actively deployed military outside of the NATO area, with France a close second, unlike other European AF's well before the Cold War ended too.
This has meant the RAF's needs in modernising it's transport fleet, has operated on a different timeline to many of the others but they still want and think they need, the A400M.

Their experience has shown that the C-17 operations to date have not required in flight refuelling, it's a nice to have but not vital. Besides, there are plenty of USAF KC-135's. KC-10's, French Stratotankers, Dutch KDC-10's around, the RAF tankers have many times refuelled allied aircraft, including USN/USMC types. In late 2001, before any bases in country were established, RAF VC-10's went way nearer Afghan airspace than other tankers to support USN/USMC strike packages.
This is why we have NATO and the recent Mali operation as mentioned.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 18607 times:

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.com/news/art...short-a400m-landing-trials-372340/

I can only imagine that KC135TOPBOOM was referring to the trial conducted at Cottbus-Drewitz.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 18059 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
Do we have any links for that?
Quoting mrg (Reply 32):
I can only imagine that KC135TOPBOOM was referring to the trial conducted at Cottbus-Drewitz.

Correct

Quoting mrg (Reply 29):
The A400M as a refueller will be most handy on operations that require helicopters and fast-jets to be refuelled. It'll do that mission far, far better than will the C130J.

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 need the A-400M as a fast jet refueler. The same for Turkey and the UK.

The RAF receptacle equipped receivers, C-17A, E-3D, RC-135W, all can rely on USAF KC-135s. Are the Voyagers equipped with receptacles?

Now Spain is different, they will need the A-400 as their primary tanker.


User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 28):
No one is going to risk a landing in a crap field to bring MRE's to people with a $200 million airplane.

That's what cargo parachutes are for!



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 17907 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 34):
That's what cargo parachutes are for!

...or LAPES for heavier load.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17804 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 29):
The A400M as a refueller will be most handy on operations that require helicopters and fast-jets to be refuelled. It'll do that mission far, far better than will the C130J.

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 approach. In my view the RAF is imbalanced because a bunch of deals were done without a lot of consideration for what else was going on.

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 34):
That's what cargo parachutes are for!

Or in most cases what happens is you land at a big airport and then use helicopters to take things to where they actually need to be.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 19
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17714 times:

I read an article not too long ago that stated the RAF C130J's would be phased out as the A400's arrive.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17568 times:

Quoting Bogi (Thread starter):
And what of the US? They have a huge gap between the [Boeing] C-17 and the [Lockheed Martin] C-130J,

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? Not so sure.

Quoting mrg (Reply 27):
Having a mixed fleet of C130J and C17 isn't a realistic proposition for us. The Transall will be replaced by one type. It'll suit us.

And that sums up the available options quite well. Large Air Forces can go for C-17 / C-130 dual fleets. Smaller Air Forces where subfleets make less sense and needing a do-it-all aircraft can go for A400M (and lease C17's and An-124's when needed).

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
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.

The C-17 will be out of production sooner or later, so no longer a competitor. C-130 and KC-390 are in another class, they may or may not compete on the lower end depending on the country's airlift needs.

Quoting mrg (Reply 27):

The Brits will soon have a transport capability that'll be the envy of many. C17, A400M and C130J together with the A330 MRTT means they'll have all bases covered.

It's an envy, but not a cost efficient setup. IMO the RAF should not be handling so many subfleets.

Quoting mrg (Reply 29):
No European country on it's own can afford to have in it's airforce all the varied assets that you Yanks have

Agree - which is why we should have a pooled fleet of C-17's or An-124's for shared use. But still too many political obstacles for that to happen.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17548 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 38):
Large Air Forces can go for C-17 / C-130 dual fleets.

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 than anything else.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 38):
Smaller Air Forces where subfleets make less sense and needing a do-it-all aircraft can go for A400M

And this is where the KC-30 excels as a tanker over the KC-767. Time will tell whether the A400 can slide into that role. The proof will be how many smaller nations, particulaly those in South East Asia who are going to have the money to buy over the next 10-15 years, like Malaysia (4 so far), Thailand, Singapore etc, go for the jet.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 17504 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 38):
Large Air Forces can go for C-17 / C-130 dual fleets. Smaller Air Forces where subfleets make less sense and needing a do-it-all aircraft can go for A400M (and lease C17's and An-124's when needed).

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. It's more of a jack of all trades and master of none.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17441 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 36):
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 approach. In my view the RAF is imbalanced because a bunch of deals were done without a lot of consideration for what else was going on.

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 maxed out RAF transport/tanker deployed - which has happened several times in the last 30 years - such things have a way of concentrating minds and blowing a gale of common sense through the corridors of power.
Not that I think the RAF would be that interested in tanker kits for the A400M's anyway, they'll want the maximum use of it as a transport.

But as I mentioned before, a lot of the set up is as much about rapidly changing events.

There might be another propellor driven US type, which is now being looked at for being modded to install a tanker kit, that could see UK service in time.
The V-22, for the carriers now being built.
If that happens, be nothing to stop them operating from land bases too. Rather like the RN Sea King AEW.7's deployed to Afghanistan to use their radar to track ground targets.

To Revelation's point, aren't all transports 'jacks of all trades'?
C-130, can do a lot but nothing too outsize.
C-17, versatile too, but cannot go down to the tactical level/austere strip that the C-130J and A400M can.
I'd say Jack Of All Trades in a transport is a complement.
Besides, as has been stated, the main customer base for the A400M are best served by something in the middle of C-130J and C-17, most could not afford the C-17, at least in any number plus the high operating costs.
But more and more of that military kit, vehicles especially, cannot be carried by C-130J
That has been driven also by the experience of bigger and more sophisticated IED's, where once there were Landrovers and Hummers, now there are Mastiffs, Stykers and all manner of bigger, heavier, much better protected vehicles.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17403 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):
To Revelation's point, aren't all transports 'jacks of all trades'?
C-130, can do a lot but nothing too outsize.
C-17, versatile too, but cannot go down to the tactical level/austere strip that the C-130J and A400M can.
I'd say Jack Of All Trades in a transport is a complement.

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 say compromises.

For instance, if you have to cover all bases with one a/c, the turboprops make sense.
Good short field performance, good FOD resistance, etc.
On the down side, you take a hit on range and cruise speed relative to a jet.
Not to mention having to design your own turboprop because you couldn't buy one off the shelf.
That's because you want to the be the jack of all trades, so you want as much thrust as possible.
This also pushes you to try state of the art propeller designs.
In turn you end up dealing with "interesting" whirl mode issues.
All end up being dealt with via time and money, so your export customers might not be able to afford the a/c.

I'm sure you'll point out that other a/c have similar problems.
So it's really about where you aim your design center, and how broad a range of requirements you want to meet.
We can see that A400M covers a large range of requirements.
We can also see it takes lots of time and money to do it.

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):
Besides, as has been stated, the main customer base for the A400M are best served by something in the middle of C-130J and C-17, most could not afford the C-17, at least in any number plus the high operating costs.
But more and more of that military kit, vehicles especially, cannot be carried by C-130J
That has been driven also by the experience of bigger and more sophisticated IED's, where once there were Landrovers and Hummers, now there are Mastiffs, Stykers and all manner of bigger, heavier, much better protected vehicles.

Seems the A400M has a good future ahead of it, presuming more nations can afford to buy it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17406 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
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. It's more of a jack of all trades and master of none.

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 farther than the J. It'll refuel fast jets at the altitudes and speeds they're used to and refuel helicopters at the altitudes and speeds they're used to. And it's pretty maneuverable.
It's a pretty good camel.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17381 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 43):
The A400M will land AND take off (with noteworthy payload) from any CBR 4 or 6 strip that a C-130J will.

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) gross weight
A400M: Tactical takeoff distance: 980 m (3,215 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)

Not sure of all of the minutia behind these measurements, but they seem to be within shouting distance, as we say...

Quoting mrg (Reply 43):
It's a pretty good camel.

Pretty good indeed, especially if you aren't paying for it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 19
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17332 times:

The A400 is a superb Aircraft by any standard, and as good as the C130 is it's being left behind.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2267 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 17221 times:

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 operations. The US will largely be left in the role of intercontinental freight lifter where we get the goods to the theater of action, secure major points of entry, and then hand over the nasty bit of getting personnel and equipment to the front lines to Germany, The UK, Spain, and France. That's what this plane is for and this is what it's going to mean. I think that suits everyone's capabilities almost perfectly.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 16874 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 37):
I read an article not too long ago that stated the RAF C130J's would be phased out as the A400's arrive.

At this rate, the RAF C-130Js will have a normal aged retirement.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 45):
The A400 is a superb Aircraft by any standard,

Which standards are those? Where and when has it proven itself in the 'field' or in a combat zone?


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16586 times:

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 customers?


WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 15993 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 46):
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 operations. The US will largely be left in the role of intercontinental freight lifter where we get the goods to the theater of action, secure major points of entry, and then hand over the nasty bit of getting personnel and equipment to the front lines to Germany, The UK, Spain, and France. That's what this plane is for and this is what it's going to mean. I think that suits everyone's capabilities almost perfectly.

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 fantasy. Though mighty and capable those nations air forces are, their combined airlift capacity might just be adequate to take a supplementary role a long the entire mission profile. Whole take-over of any part is dubious.

I am excited and do hope the A400M goes on to have a glorious, numerous, and long service though. It looks like a very capable, well-engineered piece of kit


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15798 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
Which standards are those? Where and when has it proven itself in the 'field' or in a combat zone?

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 within spec or it isn't. Then you find yourself an unprepared strip with a desired rating- let's say CBR 6. You make multiple passes and then inspect the strip for degradation. Either the results meet or exceed minima or they don't.
A Stryker with slat armour doesn't suddenly weigh more in times of conflict. A 1000 Metre runway doesn't suddenly shrink in times of crisis. An airframe doesn't suddenly become less rugged in wartime.

The A400M will behave in times of war just as it behaved during troop trials. No worse and no better.

With the possible exception of AAMs and ABMs I can't think of a piece of equipment that cannot be adequately trialled prior to actual combat so as to obviate unexpected performance shortfalls.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15777 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 48):
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 customers?

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 cancelled. You will probably get some orders for a few frames from "aspiring" nations but not likely to sum up to carry the program long term. Thus you get the plausible yet not particularly relevant if not despirate comment from people like Tentor. Given that Airbus lost the claim they launched about Boeing's misleading statements on the 747-8i, it seems the new norm is that all involved agree we should just accept bull droppings posing as facts without complaint, but I think I'll remain a loyal dissenter.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 15744 times:

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 the chances for any real export orders beyond those achieved already are slim.
I'm probably alone in thinking that some C-17 customers, having recognised the benefits of being able to transport outsize cargo yet mindful of the limitations imposed by turbofans, may well go for a few A400Ms that Germany and Spain will be offloading- or at least trying to.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15675 times:

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 its words. If we can waste 100s of billions on the banks..

User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15621 times:

Quoting Bogi (Thread starter):

Best opportunities for export?

None.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15226 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
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.
Quoting mrg (Reply 27):
The A400M from a European perspective: we don't have any ambition to transport MBTs to distant parts of the world.

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 is where? Intra Europe trains are much cheaper and the participation in NATO projects in distant regions of the world after Afghanistan is going to be virtually nill, at least from a political perspective, ditto the USA asking for help, odds are that the only receptive participant would be NATO in which case since the US Government wil be picking up the bulk of the cost, the US Air Force will be doing the job.
It does however, open up a big quid pro quo issue, European nations purchase additional A400M's available to the US, or the US Air Force purchase them to ensure European participation.

Quoting wingman (Reply 46):
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 operations. The US will largely be left in the role of intercontinental freight lifter where we get the goods to the theater of action, secure major points of entry, and then hand over the nasty bit of getting personnel and equipment to the front lines to Germany, The UK, Spain, and France. That's what this plane is for and this is what it's going to mean. I think that suits everyone's capabilities almost perfectly.

Except the political one which is actually what will drive such a confrontation, now France has virtually gone it alone in Africa save for the fact that they needed a few UK C-17's for airlift, as more A400M's enter their fleet they will be more independent, note sure how valuable that is since no one seemed to have had any questions or concerns on French involvement to attempt to hold back or negotiate logistical assistance.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14853 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
I still think EU-air forces should buy the last 10-15 C17s off the FAL to pool like NATO does

That's a a lot planes to keep busy. Three C-17s and two AN-124s would be enough.

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
for me the bigger question is where?

North Africa mostly. The Arab Spring is getting nowhere quick. That, coupled with internal strife in other countries south of the Mahgreb means that sooner or later an Anglo-French led intervention is quite likely. Although extremely unlikely it is not impossible that at some point we'll have to support a Turkish led Intervention in Syria to create a safe haven.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14823 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 11):
I don't think that the USAF will ever buy the A400M, or that they need to.

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 eventually. There are a number of C-17s that have been flown pretty hard over the past decade and with Boeing's FAL shutting down eventually, when it comes time to replace those 17s the easy option may be to grab some of the 400s.

Also, I see a lot of trashing of the A400 still going on with regards to how it could serve the EU's interests. But if we look at it closely, this plane was a clean-sheet design intended to serve the EU's military requirements. We can't say the plane comes up short compared to the C-17. The C-17 was designed to fill a role in the U.S.'s military lift requirements which are, after all, different from the EU's. Perhaps the A400 is way over budget and has incurred massive delays, but has there been ANY major defense procurement program in recent years that hasn't incurred those issues?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14767 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 57):
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 eventually. There are a number of C-17s that have been flown pretty hard over the past decade and with Boeing's FAL shutting down eventually, when it comes time to replace those 17s the easy option may be to grab some of the 400s.

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 in mind it's not the USAF who decides what to buy; it's the US Congress to decide, predominantly the House of Reps. It would be very tough, if not political suicide, for a congressman to go back to his district to tell voters: by the way, we closed down the Boeing line, and now we are going to buy that European Airbus kits. Would go over too well, I predict! That congressman would be out of the perks being in Congress before too long. Even if A400M is the only game in town, which I doubt. It's all politics, and would be ever more political when money was tight. It's not about engineering or cost.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14751 times:

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 mindset of the earliest days of the program in the early 1990s and consider the mindset back then. It seems to me the main focus of the program was intra-Europe or northern Africa type scenarios, for example Kosovo. The heavy use of the IED and the resulting need to up-armor even the more modern vehicles hadn't happened yet.

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
Intra Europe trains are much cheaper

But vulnerable / risky to use in wartime since you may not control the places the trains run and of course you can't easily change that.

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
participation in NATO projects in distant regions of the world after Afghanistan is going to be virtually nill

That's a hard statement to make. No one was really predicting 9/11/2001 and it happened, and that led (rightly or wrongly) to Afghanistan. No one can say which adventures the A400M will or will not be sent on.

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
since the US Government wil be picking up the bulk of the cost, the US Air Force will be doing the job.

Many of our a.net posters will point out that a major goal of A400M was to preserve European technical/manufacturing capabilities, thus you have the A400M, regardless of cost. Note that the customers had the ability to shut down the program only a few years ago, but these same customers were also major Airbus stakeholders and making Airbus fulfill their obligations would have been a severe blow to Airbus, so it just wasn't going to happen.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 57):
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 eventually. There are a number of C-17s that have been flown pretty hard over the past decade and with Boeing's FAL shutting down eventually, when it comes time to replace those 17s the easy option may be to grab some of the 400s.

I don't. Congress has been ordering frames that the USAF doesn't want for quite a while now. Plus we got 160 or so 767 tankers coming along that can pitch in with the hauling if/when needed.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 57):
Perhaps the A400 is way over budget and has incurred massive delays, but has there been ANY major defense procurement program in recent years that hasn't incurred those issues?

Not sure why we should accept overruns just because they happened in the past. Seems then we can just not bother with budgets and let the contractor present the bill when they decide the project is done. Note that when US contractors deal with non-US contracts they actually do end up paying penalties - see Wedgetail for an example.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 14738 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
Congress has been ordering frames that the USAF doesn't want for quite a while now.

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 good use nonetheless and have worked them quite hard. Imagine if they had ordered 20% fewer frames how much harder the rest of the fleet would have been worked.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
Quoting redflyer (Reply 57):
Perhaps the A400 is way over budget and has incurred massive delays, but has there been ANY major defense procurement program in recent years that hasn't incurred those issues?

Not sure why we should accept overruns just because they happened in the past.

We shouldn't. I was just commenting that many people have stated that the A400M should have been canceled because of budget overruns and delays. If that is the sole criteria that is to be used then many programs in the modern era, starting with the F-14 and every major aircraft since, should have been cancelled.

Anyway, I jumped into this thread when someone said the USAF would never order the A400M. Perhaps. But I could also see a scenario, which I elucidated, that could conceivably see the A400M in USAF markings.

Cheers



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting redflyer (Reply 60):
I'm not so sure the USAF didn't want them

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 no.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 14699 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 58):
t would be very tough, if not political suicide, for a congressman to go back to his district to tell voters: by the way, we closed down the Boeing line, and now we are going to buy that European Airbus kits.

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 line. Right now we know Boeing is ordering long lead time parts on its own dime. Some say this is because they know they have export orders, other say it's because they are hoping for export orders. This means the line will be open for orders through 2014. What happens if none materialize no one knows, but a year or two after no orders materialize the line will be as dead as the 757 is now.

My feeling is that the US will keep fixing what it has till replacement becomes a priority, and then buy something US made again, ala KC-46A. The transition may be ugly, but it won't be the first time the transition is ugly...

Quoting redflyer (Reply 60):
If that is the sole criteria that is to be used then many programs in the modern era, starting with the F-14 and every major aircraft since, should have been cancelled.

Yet A-12 and VH-71 were cancelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93McCurdy_Amendment has raised the heat. VH-71 survived one Nunn-McCurdy hearing but not a second.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 14562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
Right now we know Boeing is ordering long lead time parts on its own dime.

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 buy not only covers possible foreign orders, but allows the property market to recover. When the line shuts down, the property will be sold.

Different than the 757 case, I think Boeing will contract with the Air Force to retain and maintain the tooling (which is government owned) for another 20 years in case reopening the line elsewhere is deemed necessary. The 757 tooling was Boeing owned and since they had no plans to further market the plane, all was scrapped except those items needed for spare parts manufacture.


User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14164 times:

Rafael Tentor, Airbus Military's senior vice president program dreams or sees?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs...no-competition-for-400m-even-in-the-us


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14141 times:

I found the following bits interesting:

Quote:

Ian Elliott, head of defense capability marketing, undertook the interesting exercise of imagining that the French Air Force -- which will receive the first A400M in June -- had already been able to use it in the on-going operation in Mali. He said it would have enabled outsize and heavy equipment to be delivered from France directly to Northern Mali unpaved airstrips; it would have given France independence from reliance on allies to provide airlift; and would have been safer as it avoided the need for the highly vulnerable ground convoys set up to get the equipment from a port in Senegal or the paved airstrip at Bamako (Mali's capital) to the point of need in Northern Mali 900 kms away.

Anyone else find it ironic that Airbus Marketing is using as an example a military operation A400M should have participated in if Airbus hadn't screwed up the program so badly?

I'm not so sure his scenario would roll out that way even if A400Ms would have been available in numbers. Sure you "can" land an A400M on an unpaved runway in Northern Mali, but the question is would you risk the asset without being damn sure the airfield was under your control?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 13830 times:

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 package of any military transporter, it will feature lower maintenance costs trough high CFRP percentage and other technologies.

It has the most modern and efficient turboprops, excellent maneuvrability and flight characteristics.

A highly integrated and automated selfdefense system, similar to the system of the Typhoon. It can refuel jet's and choppers, once in full production.. NOT for a second Mr. Tentor is dreaming.

Rather the detractors dream this plane to be a failure.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 13692 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 66):
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 package of any military transporter, it will feature lower maintenance costs trough high CFRP percentage and other technologies.

It has the most modern and efficient turboprops, excellent maneuvrability and flight characteristics.

A highly integrated and automated selfdefense system, similar to the system of the Typhoon. It can refuel jet's and choppers, once in full production.. NOT for a second Mr. Tentor is dreaming.

Rather the detractors dream this plane to be a failure.

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 pointing out that there is hardly any market for this aircraft.

Spain and Germany combined have reduced their requirements by 26 airframes. Before new orders are placed someone needs to buy those aircraft. I have great difficulty imaging who will buy those aircraft let alone who might place orders for even more beyond that.

This is not an issue regarding a flawed product. It is an issue of a product with without additional customers.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13641 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 67):
Spain and Germany combined have reduced their requirements by 26 airframes. Before new orders are placed someone needs to buy those aircraft.

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 production has barely begun, the first frame isn't even delivered and you guys claim it won't find any customers?

It's the same like with the A380 or 787 or Cseries. Only when the delays and technical problems are solved, output and availability is guaranteed customer will place orders.


But it's of course easier to dismiss and tag it as crap.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7417 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13604 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 67):
Before new orders are placed someone needs to buy those aircraft.

Why does someone need to buy those aircraft, many nations would rather deal with Airbus directly rather than buy brandnew secondhand transports from Germany or Spain.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13565 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 68):
But it's of course easier to dismiss and tag it as crap.

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? The design was aimed squarely to the middle of the capability gap between the C-130 and the C-17: it would be a monumental fail if it had direct western competition before IOC.

Even the line about how France could have benefited from a full complement of A400Ms in Mali draws sounds funny: if the French didn't need the kit, they wouldn't have 50 on order. Truth is, A400M deliveries would probably have been too late to make a significant difference in Mali even by the original schedule (without the 2-year delay).


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1973 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13559 times:

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 happy with C130J/C17 mix. A400M maximum operational ceiling may be an issue for both India and China.

It appears those who wanted already ordered. How many countries in the world capable of waging a far away. Long range air lifters are only one piece of the equation. You got to have remote air bases or aircraft carriers.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 66):
The A400M will feature operating costs similar to the C-130 while lifting more cargo

Double the procurement cost of C-130/C-130J.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13535 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

there is a long history of both countries and manufacturers designing and building to anticipated requirements that failed to develop or took longer to develop than anticipated and the mission disappeared. The A400M may be in that category and it may not if we were to look back 50 years from now. It's already doing better than the Breguet 760 series.

I suspect part of the arguments are about instant success versus long term success. Does it matter? Are we/you stockholders? They are committed to build so many units. If economics shut the line down sooner, that's a possibility, if no sales develop and the shut it down,that's a possibility; or if sales develop and more are manufactured.. it's going to happen because some countries feel it's the right size for their needs.. other countries may find it an odd duck and avoid it. To only see it in terms of 'I win/you lose' arguments is fruitless.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13358 times:

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 price but you get:
* three times the cargo volume
* double the max payload
* double the range with the same payload
* 40% better operational ceiling
* 30% better cruise speed
* the same soft field take off distance with the same payload and fuel
* the same operational costs (that's what makes life cycle cost)
* a bunch of additional capabilities (tanker for fast jets and helos alike, advanced self-defence package, terrain following, etc.)
* and, if you can live with a limited strategic airlift capability, you might even avoid buying a few C-17s...

I'm not saying the A400M is selling itself just on merits, but for any air force looking for flexibility those should be valid arguments.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2267 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13363 times:

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.

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7417 posts, RR: 5
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13341 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 71):


It appears those who wanted already ordered.

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 Govt know they have to have a replacement on the way by 2018.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1973 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13326 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 73):

Is Airbus planning a civilian version of A400M? Sounds like a great candidate for developing world without infrastructure.

Quoting wingman (Reply 74):
I bet there are plenty of folks in the US Air Force that would LOVE to have 100 of these things

USAF is a great candidate, but any one of our congressmen can pull out the patriotic card killing the deal. There are 435 of them.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13516 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 74):
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.

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 the Typhoon as long as we're dreaming.  

I'm not trying to bash European products but the USAF made a good pick with the C-17.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 13386 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 71):
Double the procurement cost of C-130/C-130J.

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 planes.
The Iraqis paid $1.5 Billion for their six-plane programme. $250 Million per plane. The next four cost $293 Million.

The Spanish budgeted roughly €5.5 Billion for 27 planes.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13279 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 73):
I'm not saying the A400M is selling itself just on merits, but for any air force looking for flexibility those should be valid arguments.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 75):
I would bet on it that New Zealand will place an order for 4-5 A400's,

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 also be useful for the smaller pacific islands.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 19
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13200 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 77):

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 the Typhoon as long as we're dreaming.

I'm not trying to bash European products but the USAF made a good pick with the C-17.

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 separated by such small margins:


C27, C130J, A400,C17 and the C5M.


They are all so capable in their own particular envelopes its hard to choose.



I'll take one each please..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13134 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
But vulnerable / risky to use in wartime since you may not control the places the trains run and of course you can't easily change that.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
Many of our a.net posters will point out that a major goal of A400M was to preserve European technical/manufacturing capabilities, thus you have the A400M, regardless of cost.

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 peacetime will certainely be cheaper.

The 777W was unmatched by Airbus as a large twin for a number of years, Airbus did just fine. We can agree that the A400M is in a league of its own, its the way it was designed, folks can go above for a short time while the C-17 is still in production or they can go lower with teh C-130, how large the fleets will be may come down to the OEM's and how many a/c they want to sell. The C-130 should be much chepaer than the A400M, but so far the prices appear to be closer than expected, if the OEM's believe folks have no where else to go they will charge a premium, so time will tell.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1973 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13118 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 78):
The Indians paid $1.1 Billion for their six-plane aquisition. $183 Million per plane

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 Chinese want detailed drawings of every component.

I am sure A400M will be a contender when India replaces its aging 100 x AN32s.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13099 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 81):
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 peacetime will certainely be cheaper.

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 performance and FOD resistance as opposed to heavy lifting and range.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 80):
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 separated by such small margins:


C27, C130J, A400,C17 and the C5M.


They are all so capable in their own particular envelopes its hard to choose.

Agreed, however in today's "win/lose" world there is no room for rational statements such as yours.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12958 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 76):
Is Airbus planning a civilian version of A400M? Sounds like a great candidate for developing world without infrastructure.

Not that I know. However, the plane is already civilian-certified (bringing the engine's FADEC up to civilian certification documentation standards cost the program almost 1 year delay, big time screw-up but it's over and done with now), so a civilian version is possible. A bit of an overkill for a developing world nation, though: even stripped of all the military-specific features, the acquisition cost alone would buy a fair bit of infrastructure...

I think it'll be more likely to see a new two-engined civilian transport equipped with a TP400 variant.


User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12449 times:

Quote:
Airbus sees the A400M as a competitor to the Lockheed-Martin C-130J, which is somewhat smaller, and the larger Boeing C-17, which is more expensive to operate.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...e78645-824a-48ae-9c3c-e2e3d8062bd9


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10934 times:

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 weapon system cost per unit of $267 million.

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10881 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mrg (Reply 87):
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 weapon system cost per unit of $267 million.

kind of a moot point now that the C-17 is going out of production..


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10823 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 88):
kind of a moot point now that the C-17 is going out of production..

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 celebrate.

Ref: French Military Procurement Plan 2014-19 (by breiz Sep 20 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10747 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

maybe the French should sell then as sweetheart deals to former colonies

User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year ago) and read 10463 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 89):
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 celebrate.

You may be right  


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 92, posted (1 year ago) and read 10459 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 90):
maybe the French should sell then as sweetheart deals to former colonies

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 they have to take their order then resell it (that is what Spain and Germany are doing). A bunch of for sale cheap A400m's out there could be good or bad on the export marketability of the program overall. I am not really sure.

On the one hand you could use it to spice interest in other deals. Kind of a buy 1 off the line get one already built model for a discounted price type thing.

On the other you could have Airbus being forced to compete with governments looking to unload assets at almost any cost simply to be rid of them.

Not really sure how that will play out in the end.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 93, posted (12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10370 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 92):

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 they have to take their order then resell it (that is what Spain and Germany are doing). A bunch of for sale cheap A400m's out there could be good or bad on the export marketability of the program overall. I am not really sure.

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 is to save money. I recall reading that Airbus would be marketing the white tail frames which helps Airbus retain some pricing power, but in return the white tail frames were to be sold before any more new builds. This lets Airbus do the sing and dance routine for as long as the frames being taken up are on the line, but after that point it all can turn to muck in a hurry if they don't find customers for not only the white tail frames but also new order frames to keep the line running too.

If not, Trentor may find himself with a bunch of white tells to sell yet no way to make any more frames, the very definition of a 'fire sale'...

Yes, the C-17 was a fiasco in its early days, but at least it had the benefit of USG knowing it had to replace the C-141s and knowing that once C-17 was sorted they had a way to lift a few M1 Abrams into places that can make others uncomfortable. Yes, I know that most M1s would go by sea or rail, but still, C-17 was/is a heck of a C-141 replacement, and the USAF will have 223 frames to run into mush and insist they all need to be replaced in 20 years time (good luck with that!).

And with regard to A400M having no competitor for the next 10 years, one wonders if the main worry should not be that, but perhaps it should be that one can't count on the A400M being available 10 years from now.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 94, posted (12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10162 times:

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 lot of help from a lot of friends.

So with there own 35-40 and with DE and UK having sizeable fleets as well as UK having its C-17s one can move a lot of stuff, not to mention leasing commercial lift.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1423 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8332 times:

Quoting mrg (Reply 78):
The Indians paid $1.1 Billion for their six-plane aquisition. $183 Million per plane

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 the special forces version.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 82):
I am sure A400M will be a contender when India replaces its aging 100 x AN32s.

For replacing AN-32s, India has signed an agreement with Russia to jointly develop and produce 20 tonnes category planes. But that work has been pushing better part of a decade now. If it fails, they might start looking around. Would be better to go in for more C130s as it would maintain commonality, and might be cheaper than A400s too.


User currently offlineNeutronStar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7607 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 26):
The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of the time the A400M will land at the same place C-17's are landing.

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 to the fight is another thing altogether. And no one will really want to risk a limited pool of A400Ms to being down for maintenance after landing on those unimproved strips.

Quoting wingman (Reply 74):
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.

HAHAHA.....No. I think the Air Force would break its collective neck to be able to buy more F-15Es (if it were available) or C17s for the cash they'd shell out buying 100 A400Ms or 250 Typhoons. I mean, look at the scoreboard: no one is exactly clamoring for Typhoons right now, even though it is a good piece of gear.


User currently offlinemrg From Germany, joined Jul 2013, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7395 times:

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 96):
Remember with big loads you need some way to offload it.

The vehicles that the A400M was designed to carry deploy themselves. APCs and wheeled armed vehicles can travel hundreds of kilometers. Tanks cannot, but then the A400M wasn't designed to transport MBTs.

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 96):
more F-15Es (if it were available)or C17s

I seem to remember that some years ago Congress was effectively forcing the USAF to commit to further C17 that they basically didn't want.

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 96):
And no one will really want to risk a limited pool of A400Ms to being down for maintenance after landing on those unimproved strips.

The A400M was designed to land on CBR6 strips. In the same way that you don't send a C130 or C160 to the depot after every tactical landing, you won't be sending an A400M to the depot either.


User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 98, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Continuous optimism:

Quote:
... a potential sale of the A400M tactical airlifter to the Pentagon. “We are beginning to deliver actual operational aircraft. I firmly believe that within a year or two years of watching that aircraft perform ... that is going to change the interest level and that is going to change the dynamic and debate” in the U.S., O’Keefe says. “We are going to find ourselves in demand.”

Sean O’Keefe, once the head of EADS North America (renamed Airbus Group), is stepping down from his post. Allan McArtor, chairman of Airbus Americas, will assume the role of CEO of Airbus Group in North America, with oversight of operations in the U.S., Canada and Latin and South America.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_01_07_2014_p0-652340.xml&p=2


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 99, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4691 times:

Quoting Bogi (Reply 98):
Continuous optimism:

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 Airbus has little chance of ever getting a major order from the US DoD? A statement saying that DoD's massive commitments like F-35 and its relatively young fleet of C-17s and C-130s means that it'll be decades before the DoD is interested in new tactical airlifters? That the DoD doesn't even have a notional program in place to investigate a need to add tactical airlifters, never mind a set of defined requirements that Airbus could bid on? That the DoD will be purchasing a new fleet of heavy bombers before it even considers replacement tactical airlifters? That EADS North America's biggest A400M customer is more likely to be Guatemala or El Salvador rather than the United States?

Sorry, but the US DoD is not a place for Airbus to be looking for A400M customers. Airbus is much better served spending their time looking for emerging customers in EMEA. A400M is up and flying and I'm sure will prove to be a good product but that has not very much to do with the US DoD ever purchasing any.

[Edited 2014-01-08 07:47:08]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
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