Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7026 times:
Sans the UK; it's Germany, France & Spain doing the "objecting".
Quote: BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- An effort to provide U.S.-made military transport planes to NATO nations stalled Thursday as allied countries said they needed more time to review the plan.
Representatives from France, Spain and Germany voiced objections to the proposal that would allow a consortium of 18 countries to buy three Boeing Co. C-17 Globemasters, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the debate during a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels.
A second U.S. official said the objections center on whether the 18 countries would be solely responsible for any legal and financial responsibilities or if other NATO nations may be liable.
The officials requested anonymity because the matter had not yet been resolved.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9321 posts, RR: 76 Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6942 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Imagine my shock.
How's the Airbus bid going for our tanker project, hahahahaha.
Bingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6877 times:
They should buy the C-17 so they can ferry parts to all those stranded A400s they are going to have on their hands...
I think the C-17 will end up like the BUFFS they will keep them going as long as humanly possible. Its a great machine with a lot of life left on the frame!
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3119 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6742 times:
Quoting Bingo (Reply 2): think the C-17 will end up like the BUFFS they will keep them going as long as humanly possible. Its a great machine with a lot of life left on the frame!
I just wish they'd sort out this daft game of brinksmanship about closing down the line - someone order some more to stop the line being closed!
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6697 times:
And rightfully so...
It is known Boeing is in desperate and urgent need to find new buyers of their C-17 soon or they will have to close the line and book a multi-billion write off, yet they have so far found out that nobody wants of the plane and the USAF can't afford to buy more either, so the ultimate idea of the Bush administration was to pitch it to the allies of the NATO...
Guess what: ever loyal Poland immediately thought it was a great idea and pitched it to their allies!
Luckily some less enslaved members have taken out their pocket calculator before signing the deal off blindly and found out it would be EXPENSIVE to say the least....
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6697 times:
It does not seem to be about the C-17 as such, but more about some legal and liability stuff.
I think especially some of the SALIS countries don't want to be held accountable for a project, they don't want, don't need and did not initiate. So the message is more "Buy what ever you want, but don't print my name on the bill!" If NATO would sign for the contract as an organization, lots of countries could also be held responsible, but who don't want to use those C-17s.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4459 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6595 times:
It is known Boeing is in desperate and urgent need to find new buyers of their C-17 soon or they will have to close the line and book a multi-billion write off, yet they have so far found out that nobody wants of the plane and the USAF can't afford to buy more either, so the ultimate idea of the Bush administration was to pitch it to the allies of the NATO...
Guess what: ever loyal Poland immediately thought it was a great idea and pitched it to their allies!
Luckily some less enslaved members have taken out their pocket calculator before signing the deal off blindly and found out it would be EXPENSIVE to say the least....
Do you actually think that they are really that concerned about the cost? Or are they more concerned about the cost to them? I think Germany, France and Spain would have a more legitimate gripe if the A400M had the capablities of the C-17, however it does not. While the C-17 is more expensive it can carry more and get it there faster than the A400M. Which means you don't need as many aircraft to perform the same mission.
Tancrede From Finland, joined May 2006, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6570 times:
But do NATO countries really need the C-17 for their European and African missions? Only the US argues to be a global player, so needing such a plane. It is like the Swedish army buying the C-17 while I doubt that this country will ever project its own army forces to somewhere farther than Africa.
I still beleive that the NATO operation in Afghanistan is exceptional and will stay it.
Bingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6567 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 6): Which means you don't need as many aircraft to perform the same mission.
Comparing the A400m to the C-17 and vice versa doesnt make sense. They serve different niches/markets. Its like comparing the US Postal Service to FEDEX. Sure they can get your package there but it all depends on what your sending and where...
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3): I just wish they'd sort out this daft game of brinksmanship about closing down the line - someone order some more to stop the line being closed!
Amen! I honestly think Boeing will go commercial with the bird before they close the line.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): Luckily some less enslaved members have taken out their pocket calculator before signing the deal off blindly and found out it would be EXPENSIVE to say the least....
You mean to tell me four C-17s will put a squeeze on NATO? They probably spend more money on stationary in a year than they would pay for these planes. This isnt about the money or liability its just silly politics...
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6529 times:
Quoting Bingo (Reply 8): Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):
I just wish they'd sort out this daft game of brinksmanship about closing down the line - someone order some more to stop the line being closed!
Amen! I honestly think Boeing will go commercial with the bird before they close the line.
a commercial BC-17 would eb nice to see, but who would buy it?
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6495 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): It is known Boeing is in desperate and urgent need to find new buyers of their C-17 soon or they will have to close the line and book a multi-billion write off, yet they have so far found out that nobody wants of the plane and the USAF can't afford to buy more either, so the ultimate idea of the Bush administration was to pitch it to the allies of the NATO... Guess what: ever loyal Poland immediately thought it was a great idea and pitched it to their allies!
Luckily some less enslaved members have taken out their pocket calculator before signing the deal off blindly and found out it would be EXPENSIVE to say the least....
Regardless of the demonstrated lack of undestanding in regards to just how the C-17 funding is handled in the US, and I think it has been explained to you several times but I will do it again below, the idea that any part of NATO is enslaved by the US is borderline offensive to Poland and those who agreed with this. In one stroke you imply that anyone in NATO who happens to agree with the US is essentially incapable of exercising their own free will. Just because someone does not agree with you or your nations particular view on something does not mean that they are just proceeding in lockstep with someone else like some sort of lobotomized robot and to suggest that is the case is basically to marginalize a whole nation for no good reason.
Perhapse, and this is just a suggestion, Poland sees a lot of value in being aligned with the United States due to the character and history of those who share its borders. After all they have only been sliced and diced by Germany and Russia two or three times in the last 120 years or so. Honestly I cannot understand why they would be looking to maintain close relations with the United States at all. Must be those brain control rays we use again...
As for the C-17, and this is probably the tenth time it has been explained, the USAF can leave it off the budget because it has powerful supporters in congress and the military. California has a huge congressional delegation that when combined with those from Illinois, Washington and all the various places that make parts for Boeing Aircraft will ensure that it gets funded. By leaving it out of the budget they make it much more likley that other things they need will get funded and then funds for the C-17 will be added in later as part of the legislative process. The USAF can certainly afford enough C-17's to keep the line up and running and to suggest anything else is to simply not understand the process that is underway in Congress.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 651 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6449 times:
Sour grapes if you ask me. NATO dosent want to wait another what... 6-7 years for the A400M. That is part of the reason Canada went for C-17s and C-130Js... we can get them this year.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6319 times:
Quoting Bingo (Reply 8): Its like comparing the US Postal Service to FEDEX. Sure they can get your package there but it all depends on what your sending and where...
Nope, that is an inappropriate comparison. The C-17 is hardly faster, has got less unrefuelled range (with a comparable) payload and cannot fly into more remote places. It can simply transport heavier and larger goods. It's like comparing a 40ton truck to 20ton truck. Not more and not less. It depends on what size you need and what you can afford.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6291 times:
It is known Boeing is in desperate and urgent need to find new buyers of their C-17 soon or they will have to close the line and book a multi-billion write off, yet they have so far found out that nobody wants of the plane and the USAF can't afford to buy more either, so the ultimate idea of the Bush administration was to pitch it to the allies of the NATO...
Guess what: ever loyal Poland immediately thought it was a great idea and pitched it to their allies!
Luckily some less enslaved members have taken out their pocket calculator before signing the deal off blindly and found out it would be EXPENSIVE to say the least....
Has everyone forgotten the US is also part of NATO, and will share in the purchase, and operating costs of these airplanes? As far as expensive goes, we know what the C-17 costs today, but waiting 6+ years for the A-400M is an unknown cost. It could very well turn out to be much more expensive, per airplane than the C-17 is. Additionally, I didn't see anywhere where buying these 3 C-17s effects the A-400M buy at all. So what do the EADS/Airbus protection countries really have to complain about?
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5): If NATO would sign for the contract as an organization, lots of countries could also be held responsible, but who don't want to use those C-17s.
Right now they may say they don't want to use the C-17, but when the airplanes are available, they very well may be singing a different tune. Just what countries have said they don't want the use of a C-17?
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6280 times:
Quoting Tancrede (Reply 7): But do NATO countries really need the C-17 for their European and African missions? Only the US argues to be a global player, so needing such a plane. It is like the Swedish army buying the C-17 while I doubt that this country will ever project its own army forces to somewhere farther than Africa.
The completly divergent goals and needs of its partners just shows further how NATO is basically useless as an organization. Both sides of the Atlantic would be better off if NATO no longer existed but that is another point for another time I suppose.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 13): Nope, that is an inappropriate comparison. The C-17 is hardly faster, has got less unrefuelled range (with a comparable) payload and cannot fly into more remote places. It can simply transport heavier and larger goods. It's like comparing a 40ton truck to 20ton truck. Not more and not less. It depends on what size you need and what you can afford.
The range of a C-17 with a 160,000 pound payload is listed as 2,400NM. The speed is 509 Knots in cruise. It can transit the maximum range of the A400 in about 4.1 hours. On a long deployment, like 10,000 NM it can do that in 19.6 hours.
The range of a A400 with 55,000 pounds is 2,100NM. The speed is 449 Knots in cruise. At its maximum range the trip will take 4.6 hours. At 10,000NM it will take 22.2 hours.
I could be missing something but I get the impression you don't really know what you are talking about. What payload and what ranges are you looking at. From what I can tell the C-17 can carry about 3 times the payload a bit further and a bit faster than the A400. Did you find figures to the contrary?
Bingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6266 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 13): Nope, that is an inappropriate comparison. The C-17 is hardly faster, has got less unrefuelled range (with a comparable) payload and cannot fly into more remote places. It can simply transport heavier and larger goods. It's like comparing a 40ton truck to 20ton truck. Not more and not less. It depends on what size you need and what you can afford.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 15): I could be missing something but I get the impression you don't really know what you are talking about.
I fail to see how my comparison is inappropriate. Fedex caters to larger packages and they (can) ultimately get it there quicker but at a higher cost. The postal service takes smaller packages/letters and is (for the most part) slower to deliver. But they are also cheaper. Youre paying for the commodity that is time.
From a statistics standpoint, I have to agree with BIGJKU on this one. See the thing is that the C-17 is proven design that actually flies. Much like the airlines that bought the A350 and to a lesser extent the A380; the A400m is neither. You are spouting out statistics of an airplane that only exists in a group of engineers minds. Much like all Airbus' offerings, this is years away from EIS and even more years from it proving it's worth. No doubt Airbus will put together a nice frame in regards to the A400m, but it will be no C-17...because its not supposed to be!
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): So what do the EADS/Airbus protection countries really have to complain about?
Face or Saving of it... Maybe when the A400m production gets moved to China they will realize how silly this was. IIRC they said that ALL NATO members must agree on the purchase. Well my guess is that there is going to be atleast one who will worry about the "liabilities" of the A400m.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6247 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): Right now they may say they don't want to use the C-17, but when the airplanes are available, they very well may be singing a different tune. Just what countries have said they don't want the use of a C-17?
Don't get me wrong. It's not about the the C-17 as an airplane, it is just about the type of operational structure and organizational involvement that some countries wish to set up for them. Even Germany for instance is regularly using USAF C-17s to get loads that are too large for an Il-76 into Mazar e Sharif. I recall some Marder IFVs, an armored recovery vehicle, a 110ton crane and some other stuff.
But there was also quite a fuss being made about the NATO agency NAMSA, (among other things responsible for NATO-used air fields in Afghanistan) which has reportedly been lobbied by Boeing not to invest too much into air field infrastructure in A-stan, so that users of heavy Antonovs freighters would face difficulties getting their heavy stuff there without C-17s. When Germany prepared their Tornado deployment in spring 2007 planners contemplated about moving all air operations from Termez, Usbekistan to Mazar e Sharif. In order to do this they planned to completely rebuild (on their own expense!) the runway to enable An-124 operations. Then NAMSA stepped in and claimed authority about that decision and subsequently defined it as "unnecessary". That caused a lot of anger within the ministry of defense and lowered Boeings chances to sell C-17s to Germany to zero. There are still 54Mil€ reserved for the new runway at MeS and a decision to override NAMSA's authority here is still pending ministerial approval. Some people there are extremely pissed, because they feel that this kind of lobbying is starting to have an impact on the soldiers' security - logistics-wise. Especially given the fact that runways were rebuilt or even new built by NAMSA at Bagram, Kabul, and Kandahar, it seems quite obvious what is going on there ...
Now this story is just part of why Germany is rejecting an overall NATO C-17 Force. The major reason is that they have secured access to An-124 until 2012 which extremely cheap compared to any participation in the C-17 program. There might be concerns about the An-124s availability in cases of emergency or the security of the airplanes itself. But priorities are just as they are ...
That said, I consider the threat title quite inappropriate, because being an Airbus country has nothing to with it. A400Ms will not be available for operations before 2011 and the SALIS-contract (AN-124) expires in 2012 and thus in 2011 the discussion about secured, over-sized transport capabilities will come up again anyway.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 15): The range of a C-17 with a 160,000 pound payload is listed as 2,400NM. The speed is 509 Knots in cruise. It can transit the maximum range of the A400 in about 4.1 hours. On a long deployment, like 10,000 NM it can do that in 19.6 hours.
The range of a A400 with 55,000 pounds is 2,100NM. The speed is 449 Knots in cruise. At its maximum range the trip will take 4.6 hours. At 10,000NM it will take 22.2 hours.
I could be missing something but I get the impression you don't really know what you are talking about. What payload and what ranges are you looking at. From what I can tell the C-17 can carry about 3 times the payload a bit further and a bit faster than the A400. Did you find figures to the contrary?
I recall 77tons for the C-17 and 37tons for the A400M, which is pretty much factor 2 and not factor 3?! So my 40t-truck vs.20t-truck comparison is quite a good fit. I don't have any information on actual trip times but your data approves what I thought ... 4,1h vs 4,6h and 19,6h vs 22,2h is what I call "hardly faster" or "marginally faster". Range-wise you might be right that at max payload C-17s do have a slight advantage. On a normalized range-vs.-payload chart the A400M is slightly better over most of the range. Meaning that with an increasing payload range diminishes slower than with a C-17 or put otherwise load eats more into range for a C-17 than with an A400M. That might be because of the better fuel economy of a turboprop and better efficiency of the A400M carbon fiber structure. I mean wouldn't it be surprising if an airplane 16 years younger in development would not have some advantages? Apart from size it's a bit like comparing A330 and B787 - both are great, but B787 are just better because they benefit from all those little things that have been developed since the early 90s ... but I am straying off topic here ... I am personally a big C-17 fan, be assured.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6234 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): which has reportedly been lobbied by Boeing not to invest too much into air field infrastructure in A-stan,
Are there links to articles about this? I would be very much interested in reading about this.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6195 times:
With NATO renting Soviet An-124s on an almost continuous basis it's rather clear they have an operational need for something in that size/weight/range class.
The C-17 is available now, and fits that class.
The A400 isn't available now and possibly never will be (it's been in the "almost ready to go into really serious design" for years now) and doesn't fit that class.
But of course some countries don't care about requirements, they only care about political goals and Airbus is a tool for the EUs trade war on the US for countries like France and Germany (I wonder when Germany will say we should buy Antonovs instead of C-17s).
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 11 Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6183 times:
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): I recall 77tons for the C-17 and 37tons for the A400M, which is pretty much factor 2 and not factor 3?! So my 40t-truck vs.20t-truck comparison is quite a good fit.
This wonderful thing we are using is called the internet. Use Google, look up the statistics provided for each aircraft. Those are the numbers I provided you with. You do not recall correctly.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): I don't have any information on actual trip times but your data approves what I thought ... 4,1h vs 4,6h and 19,6h vs 22,2h is what I call "hardly faster" or "marginally faster".
Hardly faster is a relative term. 2.5 hours faster of a 10,000NM segment is something. If I can carry 3 times as much cargo I can make 7 trips for every six you make. In a given amount of time during a max effort I can move 3.5 times more cargo than you can over a given distance. So yes I would say that speed, combined with other capabilities makes a difference.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): Range-wise you might be right that at max payload C-17s do have a slight advantage.
Not might be right. It is a fact.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): On a normalized range-vs.-payload chart the A400M is slightly better over most of the range.
Please provide the chart.
Ferry range for C-17 is 4,700NM, for the A400M is is 4,100NM. We already established who could carry the most the furthest.
The charts I can find show the A400M will go 2,600NM, or 200NM further than a C-17 with 160,000 pounds, with a 40,000 ton or so cargo. Your stance makes no sense without evidence.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): Meaning that with an increasing payload range diminishes slower than with a C-17 or put otherwise load eats more into range for a C-17 than with an A400M.
Please provide some evidence of this claim.
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 17): That might be because of the better fuel economy of a turboprop and better efficiency of the A400M carbon fiber structure. I mean wouldn't it be surprising if an airplane 16 years younger in development would not have some advantages?
The A400M is basically a slightly bigger and upgraded C-130. It is nowhere near a C-17. Basically it is what you get if you wait almost 40 years and spend a ton more money per airframe vs a C-130. For what it cost it should be much closer to a C-17 whereas it is actually closer to the much cheaper C-130.
Bingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 6134 times:
Quoting Solnabo (Reply 19): Btw, no way Swe AF gonna buy any C-17, way to big and way to expensive. Period
Youre right its way too big and expensive for your humanitarian relief efforts. You guys need something with more volume to ship all that Ikea furniture that weighs nothing
25 DL021: Imagine that....the biggest component makers and assembly nations on the A400 trying to block purchase of the most effective strategic transport over
26 KC135TopBoom: I think it is Norway that is debating buying C-17s. The A-400M is still a long way from being an airplane, the C-130J and C-17A are here now. Protect
27 Brendows: Nope, we're discussing whether we going to buy A400Ms or C-130Js, the result will probably be known in a couple of weeks.
28 DEVILFISH: Boeing was looking at Sweden to buy two on its own..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...9/c-17-suppliers-face-cut-off.html Quote: "Boeing is t
29 Jwenting: was thinking more of 124s, which are favoured by NATO at the moment for heavy transport missions... Enough C-130s to go around in Europe that NATO do
30 Solnabo: IKEA furniture! Add some 50 Volvo and Scania trucks too.... Micke//
31 R2rho: This is all just a lot of stupid politics. The C-17 and the A400M do not compete directly against each other in their roles and can be complementary.
32 Lumberton: For those of you waiting and hoping for the C-17 line to close, you may have to wait longer... http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...OWJONESDJONLINE0
33 BigJKU: I can do pretty much the same thing with 3 C-130's as I can do with 2 A400M's. I still cannot move a tank with it so I am basically moving troops, li
34 Solnabo: Guess it´s do or die for C-17 production if there´s no order coming in If we want huge cargo flown to Kingdom Kahn we just call for An-124/225. Eazy
35 DL021: Since when are the European politicians who insert themselves into every deal required to be logical? Or politicians anywhere, for that matter? That'
36 Jwenting: Euro-politics. More precisely EADSs political mission to undercut US aircraft manufacturers in order to harm the US aviation industry.
37 PADSpot: No, there are no articles (yet?). It was reported on several German forums, with different, highly respected users approving it independently. Normal
38 PPVRA: Bla bla bla, forget them all and get in line for some C-390s! [Edited 2007-06-19 00:04:14]
39 Lumberton: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am very leery of believing that "Boeing" has successfully lobbied 'whoever' against improving the l
40 BigJKU: 55,000 pounds vs. 41,000 pounds is a heck of a lot closer than 55,000 vs 160,000 that you were comparing earlier. The point of not being able to move
41 R2rho: Actually 192 already. And therefore: In any case, folks, this is a military program. And military programs are, by definition, political. So it's nor
42 Lumberton: Precisely, R2rho. This is what many of us have been noting on the zillion or so USAF tanker threads!
43 PADSpot: *sigh* YES ... ... has understood the concept. I could not put it shorter. Apropos "near-strategic": Is there any significant piece of equipment one
44 DL021: I don't really see the thing actually getting developed, although it's certainly cool looking. It would have to show significant improvement over the
45 KC135TopBoom: Until the next turboprop airplane is designed. Hmmm, didn't the RAF buy the C-130J, too? The fact remains the capabilities of the A-400M is between t
46 Jwenting: A DSRV. Of course not something you need every day... Yes, because of the massive A400M delays. They bought it to have an aircraft instead of the A40
47 PADSpot: Huh? The A400M design is fixed and final assembly start about these days. The cargo box dimensions are as published. Here they are for comparison: Le
48 BigJKU: The problem is the A400M is too expensive for what it provides. The correct range figures have been provided for you with full loads for the aircraft
49 Rlwynn: As said many times here before. You will run out of space before weight on the typical mission. 3 C130J>2 A400M.[Edited 2007-06-20 01:10:20]
50 R2rho: Not exactly. The first fuselage and set of wings have already been delivered to the FAL in Seville. As I said in my post, for them the jump in capaci
51 Stitch: As an aside, there was a little blurb in The Seattle Times today announcing Boeing are going to pay C-17 suppliers for parts for 10 additional frames
52 PADSpot: Boeing must make an awful lot of money with their C-17s, given all the pressure they exert on potential customers and all the efforts they invest to
53 DEVILFISH: Maybe only because they could see those efforts paying off..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...hH8AAAEAAAQkfjgAAAAO&modele=jdc_34 Allies Agre
54 Stitch: I imagine the margins are decent, but the costs of shuttering Long Beach are probably the real reason Boeing is trying to keep the line running as lo
55 KC135TopBoom: I believe the DSRV used by NATO is the same one used by the USN. The USN DSRV will fit into a C-130, but was normally transported by the C-141. I bel
56 Jwenting: hmm, all my information (admittedly not from official US Navy sources) claims it requires a C-5 to lift. But maybe those sources include support equi
57 Tancrede: Just be patient, it will come in any case. So what is the problem for you?
58 HanginOut: My understanding is that land developers are drooling over the prospects of purchasing the site from Boeing, who themselves are looking at the very l
59 KC135TopBoom: The A-400M program has been around since 1995, now the delivery of the first airplane is delayed 18-24 months. It is not my problem that EADS/Airbus
60 Dougloid: Well, there's that little matter of the uranium contamination that nobody wants to talk about. http://www.longbeachcomber.com/index.php?CatID=2&Story
61 Tancrede: The problem with most of "pro-C-17" is that they forget one big fact. It is to answer the question of which countries in Europe do really require the
62 Lumberton: Kind of a mirror to the tanker situation with the USAF? They simply do not need the transport capability that the KC-30 has to offer. Precisely why w
63 Tancrede: If you think so, then you are perhaps right. I will very well understand the USAF if it decides to buy an American-made aircraft, based on their own
64 Atmx2000: Is it really a European one, or primarily just a French, British, German and Spanish one?
65 Tancrede: If I do remember well France, Britain, Germany and Spain are countries situated in Europe, or is it?
66 Atmx2000: But why should other European countries favor the A400? I don't think the US offerings are advertised as North American or Pan-American and the Russi
67 Tancrede: Ok, then tell me countries, others than the ones above, that you really think would need the capacity of the C-17, and then explain me why.
68 BigJKU: I would go with the answer that you get a proven platform for what is quickly looking to be a realtivly comprable price. The A400M should cost no mor
70 Tancrede: But you did not answer the question about needing or not the C-17 for most of the countries.
71 BigJKU: Oh most probably do not need a C-17, but they also do not need an A400M. You need something bigger than an A400M if you are going to deploy into a hi
72 Dougloid: Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Uncle Sap may just decide he's not going to pull y'alls chestnuts out of the fire again. Reme
73 Tancrede: "Big is perhaps beautiful", but if you are a small country with already difficulties to maintain your army - like most countries of the "New Europe"
74 Dougloid: Perhaps, perhaps not. We'll know when the A400M enters service. The people who designed the A400M identified a slot in the market for cargo haulers w
75 BigJKU: I would agree if the price were comprable but it is not. I don't have a problem with the plane, I have a problem with the pricetag. You state that an
76 Tancrede: In that case you are right. Knowing how public finances work here in France, the buyer will just ask himself what do he really needs and at what pric
77 Dougloid: Youse guys have all the fun. We get crap for airshows. I saw the first flight of the C17 back in the day. I worked in product development on the C17
78 KC135TopBoom: That type of thinking doesn't leave much room for future expansion of military capability, when (if?) you need it.
79 Tancrede: That is why we always said that things are always big in the US.
80 R2rho: Probably nobody except UK (who has them) and France (who will never buy them). But many countries do require a C-17 on an occasional basis, which is
81 KC135TopBoom: Germany and Poland both use USAF C-17s to support their missions in Afghanistan (Germany) and Iraq (Poland).
82 DL021: This is an example of extremely shortsighted thinking that if allowed would leave those nations shorthanded when the time comes (as it inevitable doe
83 Tancrede: Inevitable for the US, but not necessary for the Europeans. Like I said previously, Afghanistan's NATO operation is by far unique and certainly will
84 BigJKU: But this is not a case of buying a car that cost half as much with half as much capability. You are getting half, or less IMHO, of the capability for
85 DL021: Mais non....the likelihood of France needing strategic transport to Kourou or Nouvelle Caledonie, or someplace in Francophone Africa is high, and the
86 Tancrede: Washington’s wishes or ...? At least, you can count down Iraq, that is your problem.
87 DL021: THat makes no sense...I'm not trying to be rude...I just don't understand what you're saying. Perhaps it's a translation thing. Essais encore un fois
88 Tancrede: Thanks for your reply but I am not going farther into this discussion as it is clear that I am going to stick on my position, which did not move sinc
89 DL021: and to you, monsieur.....although I think sterile may be the wrong word to describe the replies.
90 Revelation: They'd probably loose access to the votes of the California sentators and representatives, and that is something worth holding on to if you can.
91 R2rho: So France (and Europe in general) should just stay on their continent or immediate vincinity and not worry about conflicts happening elsewhere that c
92 RIXrat: Coming in stone cold to this thread, I was told by a high-ranking Latvian Air Force office that one C-17 would be based at the Latvian Air Fore base a
93 DL021: The reps don't care unless it's in their district.....the sens are no more powerful than any others of their seniority. I'm not sure I concur with yo
94 L410Turbolet: Like France with track record of 40 years sabotaging NATO??? Did I say sabotage??? I meant its half-membership of course!!! Poland honored its commit
95 RIXrat: I don't know exactly, but the figure bandied about is approximately EUR 2.5 million expendable from the Latvian budget to keep the plane on base, but
96 DL021: Oh, that..... I thought you were referring the the Serbian incident. Poland has a much closer memory of how it is to live under the thumb of tyranny
97 EmmenezMoi: Airbus's website actually mentions: 2,400nm range for 66,000 pounds or 3,450nm for 44,000 pounds so 2,100nm for 55,000 pounds can't be right
98 L410Turbolet: Unlike their southern neighbor they are no
99 HanginOut: It doesn't make sense to have only one C-17 based in Latvia. Reading your second post, are you saying that the entire NATO C-17 fleet will be based a
100 VANGUARD737: And this expert analysis comes from?
101 Tancrede: First tell me when France and Europe completed an armed intervention on the other side of the planet (on the exception of the colonial wars of Indoch
102 DL021: Afghanistan. East Timor (limited but armed response nonetheless). New Caledonia, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire. The potential sites for future troubles could b
103 Tancrede: Afghanistan, East Timor (btw an Australian operation), Chad and Ivory Coast are "low intensity" conflicts where there is not heavy hardware involve (
104 DL021: There were French forces present...especially transports. Naval and AdA. The point is that inside the last 20 years French forces have deployed to th
105 Tancrede: It was a minor operation. Concerning France, shipping was enough for this mission. Sorry but I cannot recall, in the last 20 years, in this region, a
106 R2rho: So should this situation remain like that forever or should Europeans do something about it? It's not a problem of resources but lack of will. As suc
107 DL021: Then why did they use the C-160s and CN-235s? They were limited in what they could do, and wished they could do more. I'd have to say you are very wr
108 Tancrede: Then, I will reply in the same way than many here have done. Why not purchasing the bigger one when it is available. That is the way how it is done i
109 NorCal: Budget contraints mostly. The KC-30 and the KC-767 can both perform the same missions (fuel cargo men etc.), the KC-30 can just do it with a little m
110 Thorny: Because we don't need the bigger one, we already have large fleets of C-5s and C-17s, as well as C-130s and soon C-27Js. We need tankers. KC-30 makes
112 Thorny: Sure did! But we need the tanker function a lot more than we need the cargo function these days.
113 BigJKU: Tankers are a different situation than cargo planes. The most important factor is the number of booms you can get in the air for a given cost. Partic
114 Zwaving: The arguments I have been reading are exactly the same as we heard in Canada when we decided we needed larger transports for our use when we needed it
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3119 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, 
From Finland, joined May 2006, 237 posts, 
Comparing the A400m to the C-17 and vice versa doesnt make sense. They serve different niches/markets. Its like comparing the US Postal Service to FEDEX. Sure they can get your package there but it all depends on what your sending and where...
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 651 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 699 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4103 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
