Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Your Choice: A400M Or C17 Globemaster Iii?  
User currently offlineA345-fan From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 13 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5238 times:

Hi @all!

In Germany we have a very interesting discussion at this moment in the politics; there are still some questions because of the financial effects of the order.

Our german Air Force needs a new Transporter because of the old TransAll-Aircrafts which are too old and the specifications are not very good of them (range, payload etc.), too.

The german gouvernment is very interested in the A400M and will sign the contract in the near future.
But I think it is very crazy to read out of the newspapers that the A400M is not able to carry heavy vehicles or tanks.
For some transports to Afghanistan the german gouvernment had to rent some AN-124!

My opinion is that the C17 is the best military transporter worldwide and I cannot understand why to choose the A400M ... Just have a look on the specifications. And I don't think that the A400M will be (much) cheaper, too.

What's your opinion?

Greetings from Germany,

A345-Fan

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5069 times:

The A400M will meet German needs, but they don't need 73, that's just to get more workshare, in any case no one really thinks that 73 would ever get funded. More like 50.
Sure the C-17 is more capable, it's also a lot more expensive. The USAF wanted 210, so far they got 120 and are trying for another 60.
If the A400M project dies, which despite Rudolf Sharping playing his usual destructive games, it probably won't, (remember how he tried to scrap the Eurofighter in 1992, all he did was add to delays and costs), the RAF would increase it's C-17 fleet to 12, and buy more C-130Js.
But the delays are silly, here is an opportunity to build a transport with much better lift capability than the C-130J, which is restricted by it's fuselage width, and more affordable than the C-17, with some of it's capability.




User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

My choice is... http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/7190/ Big grin

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlinePW4084 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5003 times:

GDB, I think the official USAF C-17 order currently stands at 134.

PW4084


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1320 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

Italy already withdrew from the A400M project after having signed a LoI for 16 examples last year.
Our Air Force said that we don't need that airplane but there are more urgent needs in the AF: the tankers, the AWACS platform and MLU for AMX and TORNADO.
We have already ordered our new tankers in the shape of 4 B767TT.
Our Transoprt Brigade (the 46th at Pisa) is in the process of replacing its 12 C-130Hs with 12 C-130Js and 10 C-130J-30s plus two more options for the J-30s; we have also placed an order for 12 C-27Js and another order may follow to replace the current 40 strong G-222 fleet.
What the Italian Air Force might need is a more capable, truly strategic airlifter for global reach missions: the C-17 is in this respect a lot more suited than the A400M. And as the RAF showed, a leasing of few examples (from 4 to 8) could turn out to be the best option.

However, during the recent polemics which led also to the resignation of the Foreing Affair Minister in Italy, somebody said that the European Union Countries should begin to think to a Joint Air Force, maybe beginning with an Air Transport Brigade built up with Cargos bought in common.

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineAFC_ajax00 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

C-17 Globemaster III, overall more capable,


Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you long to return
User currently offlineSpectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4930 times:

The C-17 is more capable and probably the better option for today's large air force where conflict around the world means armed forces may have to deploy quicky thousands of miles away. However, the potential economic benifits of the A400M could out weigh that, esspecially for the European partners who would have the industrial benifit of manufacturing the aircraft. Perhaps a mixed force is not out of the question, esspecially for a large air force such as the RAF, a squadron or two of each for different jobs. IN a conflict situation, if one is easier to maintain in the field, it culd be deployed ot the area for transport duties in that region, whereas the other culd transport supplies to and from the region back to home. Although having both types would raise maintanence costs, but the USAF has 3 heavy transports and seem to get by okay.

User currently offline777lover From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4907 times:

Go C-17 Big thumbs up

User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4898 times:

Well, the A400M is locally made so maybe thats the main reason to choose that one. But in my opinion the
Antonovs rule the show they still have huge problems with their AN-70 design, so it will be the old designs that will continue to rule...


User currently offlineHamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

I seem to remember reading an article in the last 8-12 months that said there was a possibility that some US cargo companies were interested in a civilian version of the C-17. Has anyone else heard this? If so, it seems like it would help the USAF two-fold. First, I assume that would spread the cost and make future acquisitions less expensive. Second, I'm sure the military would want to include the civilian models in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

So, back to the original post...it seems that might also shave some of the cost if the German air force was interested in the C-17?


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

I believe the proposed civilian version of the C-17 was called the MD-17. Not sure of the status of the program. Would the USAF, as the main customer, be happy about a wide array of civilians having access to an a/c almost identical to the one it operates?

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineHamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

I don't think the DoD would mind having a civilian version. It's not like the C-17 is top secret technology. Besides, the civilian version wouldn't require many of the systems needed on the military version(i.e. self-defense measures).

User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4865 times:

C-17!!!

And, I agree... it'd be awesome to see a civilian version, the BC-17, in service with cargo carriers, for example.

I've been in a C-17 and it is a really great aircraft. Great to have some based here at McChord.

N400QX


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Paper airplane vs. real one.

Got to go with the real one.

Esp. when you consider the paper one does not offer any major revolutions or increased capablities that would offset the risk from an unproven and unflown design.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

All aircraft start as paper designs.
C-17 is much too expensive for most airforces, and for some, the C-130J is not capable enough.
Something in the middle is needed.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4853 times:

True but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

If you are competing a drawing board aircraft against real ones such as the C-17, C-130J and the AN-70 you have got to have some sort of, for lack of better term, Gimmick.

Such as, more size, more efficency or better preformance.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDuggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

The German General in charge of the call for offer chose the An-7X just before the European Affairs Minister said the A-400M would be preffered.
This General quit...


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4823 times:

Germany does not need an aircraft in the A400M/C-17A class. The C-130J would be ideal.
Both A400M and C-17 are too large for them.
German officials are under orders from Berlin not to say negative things about the A400M... And ANY NATO country would prefer anything over a Soviet (oops, Russian) product, as those do not fit into the NATO standardised system of equipment.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13044 posts, RR: 78
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4825 times:

No doubting the politics in Germany's A400M saga.
But, new version of a wonderful aircraft the C-130J may be, it cannot carry many critical items of military equipment.
C-130J would be a quantum leap from the C-160's, but if the Rapid Reaction Force is to be taken seriously, they need an airlifter with a better capacity than C-130J.
That's why the RAF were so keen to lease some C-17's, despite getting some C-130Js.
They are the only European airforce with any kind of seemingly permanment, increasing commitments outside the NATO area.
(Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Falkland Islands, Sierra Leone on operations, lots of other places for exercises).
If A400M falls down, expect more RAF C-17's, a total of 12 being bought has been mentioned, and more C-130Js, maybe another 25.
They may get 2 more on lease anyway.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

"And ANY NATO country would prefer anything over a Soviet (oops, Russian) product"

The An-70 is a joint venture of Ukraine (Antonov Design Bureau), Russia, and Uzbekistan.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Your Choice: A400M Or C17 Globemaster Iii?
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...
MD C17-A GlobeMaster III @ MEX Again! posted Wed Jul 6 2005 01:53:35 by Fyano773
Question For Boeing C17 Globemaster Crewmembers? posted Sat Sep 6 2003 10:13:01 by Undies737
C-130J Or A400M - What's The Better Aircraft? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 07:19:12 by AirRyan
C17 And The A400M posted Fri Mar 29 2002 05:08:03 by AC340
A400M Issues Same As A380? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 20:06:42 by RedFlyer
Airbus Just Finished Largest Composite Wing Ever (A400M) posted Sat Dec 2 2006 09:09:31 by Slz396
First A400M Composite Wing Complete posted Wed Nov 29 2006 16:32:37 by RichardPrice
Bye, Bye Fokker 60! What Is Your Future? Airline? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 12:28:57 by OwlEye
Bye, Bye Fokker 60! What Is Your Future? Airline? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:13:37 by OwlEye
A400M For Nato? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 22:12:16 by RIXrat

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format