Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

KC-X tanker threads will likely diminish in the next year after the conclusion of a dramatic selection process including scandals, bribery, flag waving, strategy changes, politics etc.. To continue the tradition I thought it might be appropriate to launch this first A400M for USAF thread, because I think there will be some similarities for the next 5 years ..   

With hundreds of C130s going 40 yrs old, C-17s working ok but having extreme list prices, the C130J having a very long maturation process, do you think there might be chance for the A400M to make the USAF inventory?



For loads in between a few pallets / folks and an M1 battle tank there might be a niche..

[Edited 2008-01-30 07:30:24]

222 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I think something closer to the ATT program goals will emerge. Boeing will be heavily invested in the quad tiltrotor probably by then.

ATT Program; is it Real?

http://members.aol.com/samc130/att.html

Competitively, this concept would probably leap-frog the A-400 in capabilities, and given the delays, might even beat it into service!


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 1):
Competitively, this concept would probably leap-frog the A-400 in capabilities, and given the delays, might even beat it into service!

Perhaps, but this new bird will take years to develop and the A400M will be available sooner. It wouldn't come as any surprise to see the US buy the A400M, if only in limited numbers, to replace some of the C-130s and augment the C-17A.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 1):
Competitively, this concept would probably leap-frog the A-400 in capabilities, and given the delays, might even beat it into service!

Interesting concepts. I don't think it will leap frog the A400 in costs and time to market too. Maybe they can cut back on F22 and JSF's to finance it.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/att-pics.htm

Apart from that I don't know how interested the USAF would be to replace the large numbers of rugged C130s by "Super Ospreys".

Assumption for the ATT is that the USAF will buy piles of C130-J to bridge the next 20 years. Looking at current aquisition trends I doubt this will be the case.. maybe they'll look for something more current.



BTW there is a recent Flight Global article on the subject, I just discovered it.







http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ltrotor-as-future-battlefield.html

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 2):
It wouldn't come as any surprise to see the US buy the A400M, if only in limited numbers, to replace some of the C-130s and augment the C-17A.

 checkmark  That would seem like a pragmatic direction..

[Edited 2008-01-30 07:49:02]

User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The USAF made a huge purchase of C-23 Sherpa's from Shorts in the 80's to be used in Europe when they had a huge presence in Europe, I could see the the the C-130E wing at Ramstein go to these which could be a good fit because of a short logistics tail.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
Maybe they can cut back on F22 and JSF's to finance it.

The chance of a snowball surviving in hell is more likely than that happening.  Big grin

Me thinks that this topic will devolve into the same slew of dog and pony shows that is/was the KC-X thread...  Yeah sure



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Honestly, the prospect of transitioning to helicopter mode in an ATT with one engine out sitting in the cargo bay staring at a heavy armored vehicle is a little terrifying.

The Sherpa's, which are tiny, are completely worn out from what I've heard, and are being/will be replaced with C-27J's?

If we can actually draw down operations in Iraq, survive the presidential election season, and make a tanker selection that goes into production over the next 2 years, I think we'll hear a lot about this requirement. The Joint Heavy Lift studies in that article, while interesting, won't happen, IMHO. The Air Force is not going to participate in, condone, or stand idly by and allow the Army to get something equivalent to the C-130 in size. It might make sense, but ultimately any "Joint" project will be killed for Department of Defense political reasons, resulting in a larger Air Force vehicle, which likely won't be a tilt rotor/wing.

Boeing's basically designed the quad tiltrotor for the Army, so it might as well be built in France as far as the Air Force is concerned.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 6):
Boeing's basically designed the quad tiltrotor for the Army, so it might as well be built in France as far as the Air Force is concerned.


:D

I think a 1:1 replacement for the C130´s might be more like the C370, that seems aimed at this market. I would not be surprizd if Embraer looks for cooperation with a US manufacturer in the near future..



Then we have an outsider from Japan the new Kawasaki C-X, about half the capasity of the C-17, double the Herc´s. Replace the CF6 engines with GENX and there is a future proof aircraft.



User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4771 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Where does this leave LockheedMartin's AJACS? LM has already picked Dornier's 328J as its technology demonstrator.

Ajacs - Airborne Mack Truck Or BWB Lifter? (by DEVILFISH Apr 21 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ontest-to-build-cargo-x-plane.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-composite-airlifter-x-plane.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

While I see the chances of this happening very slim, there are some things to consider:

- The A400M, in terms of capabilities, fills a "market gap". It's not a C-130. It's not a C-17. It fits in between. There is no other military transport currently in that market segment.
- The A400M's capabilities make it very versatile indeed, it fits into a broad number of roles, and has a large flight envelope.

...and which military transport aircraft will be still in production in 10 years? What other in-production aircraft will be available to compete with it?

The A400M business case may start to prove itself in the mid-term, rather than right away...


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The extreme price of a C17? You HAVE checked what the cost of a A400 is before the cost over-runs and delays made it even worse?

Trust me, the C17 seems like a screaming deal in comparison to the A400 unless you just need hulls or are supporting EADS since you are a EU nation.

FYI the C17 hauls 2.5 times the cargo by wieght than a single A400. It doesn't cost any where near 2.5 times as much


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 9):
..and which military transport aircraft will be still in production in 10 years? What other in-production aircraft will be available to compete with it?

The A400M business case may start to prove itself in the mid-term, rather than right away..

Both the C-130J and the C-17 might still be in production 10 years from now, if DoD wants more of each.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
FYI the C17 hauls 2.5 times the cargo by wieght than a single A400. It doesn't cost any where near 2.5 times as much

And the reality is, the A400M comes with the baggage of potentially moving US jobs overseas. Hard to justify when tax dollars are involved, unless EADS is prepared to build them here.

Maybe the Coast Guard will buy some to replace their older C-130's. They seem to like European aircraft.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8849 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
FYI the C17 hauls 2.5 times the cargo by wieght than a single A400. It doesn't cost any where near 2.5 times as much

When did the C17 start lifting over 205,000 lb of cargo ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The C-17 famously high cost overruns sparked congress research 15 yrs ago already, nearly killing the project.

The C-17s are impressive aircraft and hands-down CF favourite. C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive – the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft. Constant US government pressure reduced that price slightly but these numbers vary depending on what is being counted. DND originally estimated the cost of 6 C-17s at $1-to-$1.6B.[3] But the cost given for the new Airlift Capability Program-Strategic is $3.4B for only 4 C-17s (or US$762.5M each) due to a 20 year maintenance deal. Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-c17.htm

Maybe the USAF should buy some A380Fs some day, as a cost reduction measure.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Sorry, I was wrong

C17 @2,400nm range 169,000lbs
A400@2,400nm range 66,000lbs (per Airbus military website)

2.56 times more capacity for the C17.

Silly me for being too conservative in my back of the envelope calculation based on memory.

Its true you can get an extra 7 tonne into the A400 if you don't mind a 1,700nm range. So lose 30% of the range to pick up a mere 23% more payload

Kinda kicks kessje's argument about the A400's great range right in the family jewels.

One might also note that Germany signed on the dotted line to pay $130million euro a frame with their initial order. I'm guessing the reduction from 73 frames to 60 frames was to cover cost overruns and delays without digging deeper into the pockets.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ilitary/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

Guess that puts XT6Wagon's 2.56 to bed.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
KC-X tanker threads will likely diminish in the next year after the conclusion of a dramatic selection process including scandals, bribery, flag waving, strategy changes, politics etc..

Ya' know Keesje, I think you may be right here, if NG/EADS gets the KC-45 contract.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ilitary/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

Guess that puts XT6Wagon's 2.56 to bed.

Would you like to try again? Perhaps actualy READ what you link?

Range at 30-tonne Payload * 2400 nm

taken right from

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

30 tonne = 30 metric tons which aprox = 66,000lbs

It is true that Boeing lists a lower range, I got mine from a government paper somewhere where they listed that it couldn't make the desired 2,400nm range at the full cargo capacity, but had to reduce to 169K lbs. Its very possible that the later frames are different than this early number. Clearly something has changed as all the older data lists a 173K lbs max payload



=======================================
Oh and if you want to get REALLY brutal on the A400

A400 @ 3,450nm range has a cargo capactiy of... 44,000lbs
C17 @ 4,000nm range has a cargo capacity of... 100,300lbs.

Or at 40,000lbs cargo the C17 can fly unrefueld 5,610nm, a mere 550nm more than the A400 can travel with NOTHING but pilots and fuel.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
The extreme price of a C17? You HAVE checked what the cost of a A400 is before the cost over-runs and delays made it even worse?

the A400M is a fixed price contract. Cost overruns are therefore completely for EADS to pay (that's why Gallois said they will never sign such a contract again)

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Both the C-130J and the C-17 might still be in production 10 years from now, if DoD wants more of each.

where are you going to get the money? Order less JSF's?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
And the reality is, the A400M comes with the baggage of potentially moving US jobs overseas. Hard to justify when tax dollars are involved, unless EADS is prepared to build them here.

they will of course then build them there, perhaps next to the KC-45 line in Mobile  Wink


User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):

can you do me a favor Keesje, post that chart a few hundred more times? I need to look at it in other threads as well because it doesn't suit this one or hundreds of others where it has indeed been used. Maybe in those anti abortion threads , would work good.


As for which, wouldn't politics play about 99% of the roll of ever ordering a european made airlift?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30437 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
The C-17 famously high cost overruns sparked congress research 15 yrs ago already, nearly killing the project.

Maybe the USAF should buy some A380Fs some day, as a cost reduction measure.

Looks like the USAF should have followed Boeing's advice at the time and bought 747-400Fs instead. Big grin


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 18):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Both the C-130J and the C-17 might still be in production 10 years from now, if DoD wants more of each.

where are you going to get the money? Order less JSF's?

They will get it from the same place they would purchase the A400M, if so inclined.  Smile


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
a mere 550nm more than the A400 can travel with NOTHING but pilots and fuel.

No Loadmaster, either.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 18):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Both the C-130J and the C-17 might still be in production 10 years from now, if DoD wants more of each.

where are you going to get the money? Order less JSF's?



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 18):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
And the reality is, the A400M comes with the baggage of potentially moving US jobs overseas. Hard to justify when tax dollars are involved, unless EADS is prepared to build them here.

they will of course then build them there, perhaps next to the KC-45 line in Mobile

We can buy them with the moeny we don't have to buy C-17s and C-130s with.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Maybe the USAF should buy some A380Fs some day, as a cost reduction measure.

The USAF is not really in the box carrying business. If they want another big cargo airplane, they will buy a real cargo airplane, the B-747-8F. The A-380F project was so popular that Airbus has essentailly killed it.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I would have to agree even though for some cases the C-17 is somewhat of an over kill the USAF would be better off just ordering more of them at more cost or not (I have no idea what the A400m runs) the C-17 is already in production and has preformed very well in battle there is no reason to order elsewhere.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
If they want another big cargo airplane, they will buy a real cargo airplane, the B-747-8F

True, A380F was a jooke, totally unsuitble for militairy transport it seems.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
The A-380F project was so popular that Airbus has essentailly killed it.

I think the A380 passenger troubles cause its postponement. They had to make choices, loosing the -F customers in the process.


25 F27Friendship : there is a difference. To keep the C-17 line open they have to buy them NOW. That's when the money is failing. In say 10 years time, there might be m
26 KC135TopBoom : It was "postponed" until 2017, at the earliest. Is Airbus looking at still having A-380 problems then? This is really not much of a problem. The US G
27 F27Friendship : haha, well, we all know how good an example the C-5B program is to explain what a shitload of money it will cost to re-open a line. Buying something
28 Post contains links and images Keesje : Little update, the A380 is ok. Better aim your arrows to the west now.. I think the ideas above will costs at least $20bill and take 15 years. probab
29 Texl1649 : A Boeing team-up with Antonov and Pratt to product/upgrade the AN-70 is still the wild card, imho. Find a way to claim American (jobs), and off-the-sh
30 F27Friendship : somehow I think the American public will have a lot more problems with a Ukrainian/Russian plane than with a perceived "French" plane...
31 Keesje : If t I the A330 is perceived french, the A400M would be spanish (assembled near Sevilla). Both non-sense of course..
32 KC135TopBoom : I believe the USCG is buying HC-130Js now, replacing their older worn out HC-130H. IIRC the USCG already has 5 HC-130Js delivered, under their Deep W
33 Halls120 : The HC-130J's were purchased by Congress for the Coast Guard. They aren't yet "missionized," so all they do is serve as cargo haulers while the CG sc
34 TexL1649 : No, I sincerely doubt that. Throwing Boeing/Pratt on the project will also alleviate the marketing challenges for the lobbyists.
35 Keesje : For the USCG the A400M seems to big & expense anyway.. You might be right. The Russian / Ukrainians are as reliable / thrustworthy to Americans as me
36 F27Friendship : is Northrop making a difference for the KC-30? Is Lockheed for the UH-72?
37 TexL1649 : It seemed to work for the US-101, and the T-45, Harrier, and the Texan. Where the "domestic" alternative product has either failed, or does not exist
38 Post contains images R2rho : Hmmm... Boeing doesn't seem to feel very confident about that. They're glad for every single order they can get to keep that C-17 line running. But t
39 Post contains links Keesje : Interesting article on this exact topic. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ould%20Dominate%20Strategic%20Lift It will be hard for the USAF to avo
40 KC135TopBoom : So, you are saying the USAF needs to buy some B-747-8Fs? You mean they now have the production for the A-380s from EASA/FAA? At least we know where t
41 LMP737 : Since we are not talking about the tankers and the Boeing executives involved in that mess are now gone it is rather irrelevant. Also Keesje, it seem
42 F27Friendship : well, I think the best option would be to buy more C-17's as they are quite needed and it would prevent handing over the market to Airbus. so where d
43 KC135TopBoom : The Russians hate us, but at least they say that top our face. The French hate us, too, but try to hide it by smiling at us. That I agree with, along
44 Post contains images FighterPilot : Cal
45 Keesje : True, but explaining becomes easy when you have no choice. Slots from 2011 I think.. I think the hate is the other way around. Because they joined in
46 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Opps, me bad, That should say "production certificate" for the A-380...... Yeah, I guess they were right. We will pull out of Iraq, now. The Russians
47 F27Friendship : the French don't hate you. How many French people do you know? Freedom Fries anyone? come on..
48 Post contains images R2rho : The truth is, French and Americans have always had a sort of love-hatred relationship going on!
49 Post contains links Texl1649 : It appears someone else recently thought a Boeing Antonov link might not be totally, completely, absolutely insane. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/
50 Post contains links TexL1649 : Another interesting article had this perspective from a Ukrainian (note; this is not Russia). He was commenting that the Canadians should pursue the A
51 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : My ex-wife, and yes, she still hates me. That is very true, First my wife and I loved each other, and the sex was out of this world. Then we hated ea
52 Keesje : The engines that ran for the order were Pratt & Whitney PW180, TP400, Turboprop International (Snecma/MTU/ITP/Fiat) M138 (M88 core) and the BMW Rolls
53 KC135TopBoom : I agree, and it will look great with USAF/AMC markings.
54 TexL1649 : You implied elsewhere that the PW180 was a lower hp engine, and that played a role. That's the comment I don't get. My concern is that a further refin
55 Post contains images USAF336TFS : Dude, that's why I married an Austrian! My second choice was an Italian. Both are known for not hating anyone.
56 KC135TopBoom : I'm going for that now..........LOL
57 F27Friendship : right, I didn't know it was that personal for you..
58 KC135TopBoom : Actually, I wear it as a badge of honor.
59 Texl1649 : Since the rest of the thread has gone so far off topic anyway; "Here's what I know man. Never mess with mother nature, mother-in-laws, and mother frea
60 Wvsuperhornet : I know you'll be shocked F27friendship but I whol hartedly agree!!!!
61 Columba : There is a certain rivalry between the French and the United States but I would not call it hate.
62 TexL1649 : There's something ironic when a Geman (flagged) poster points out that there is a rivalry between the French and the United States. Historically, when
63 Halls120 : I hadn't realized they had gotten one of the aircraft operational. The others are awaiting funding, according to a source at CG HQ. The whole French-
64 Columba : Well there is also a rivalry between the French and Great Britain and between France and Germany and Great Britain and Germany. People make their jok
65 Wvsuperhornet : I doubt there is any rivalry the French and the US have more in common than they want to admit, most of the time that is the problem especially with t
66 Post contains images Keesje : Yes, even stranger, if you meet them in person they are mostly nice moderate folks
67 Post contains images Dougloid : No. Step away from the crack pipe. Signed, the American Public.
68 F27Friendship : now that is what I call a constructive addition to the discussion.... :|
69 KC135TopBoom : But, I thought adding the picture of the (pre-Dregnaught) USN Battleship USS Massachusetts, BB-2 was a nice touch. BOT, I think if the USAF were look
70 Post contains images Keesje : Thats interresting, why? You think you are empowered by the American Public? What about the ship
71 Post contains links NorCal : Per pound of cargo hauled, the A400 is more expensive than the C-17 The USAF is planning on buying 15 C-17s for 3.9 billion or approximately $260 mil
72 KC135TopBoom : Thats because you are American, like I am, not French, like Keesje
73 Post contains images Keesje : Well, alternatively you can get an A380. Are you willing to sell the US Air Force to the reds ?! OMG ! I never sought that behind you, damn commies.
74 Halls120 : Isn't it funny how the A400M supporters go mute when faced with the cold hard facts displayed above. When you figure in the personnel costs that go a
75 Post contains images NorCal : When and why? The 747 and A380 can only do the box hauling missions. They can't carry tanks or vehicles or other oversized cargo and they can't land
76 Post contains links and images Keesje : A C-17 costs the same as a new A380, while already 180 C17s are build. The C-17 cost overruns are legendary. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C-17
77 NorCal : That is true and it mattered back in the 90s, but all that matters now is the cost of what we can get a C-17 for today, which is $260 million accordi
78 TexL1649 : I've heard this a lot, but I've never figured out why; the 747 cannot carry an Abrams tank. Is it really inconceivable that the 747F could be modified
79 Revelation : Interesting. And so are the A400M cost overruns. It looks like Airbus will eat these cost overruns (and on top of A380 costs they must be getting ind
80 Halls120 : So - are you saying that the US Air Force should buy the KC-30 simply because of all of the past EU purchases of US goods? What seems funny is your a
81 Keesje : No, you suggested "that the RAF, Luftwaffe, and French Air Forces buy the C-17", obviously not knowing they already did and are buying billions of Ap
82 Post contains images Halls120 : You are correct. I did say that. But that was in response to Zeke, who complained that the USAF should buy KC-30's because we might base and/or opera
83 Revelation : Considering the A380 can't be refuelled in mid air, doesn't have blown flaps and high-impact landing gear for short landing, can't back up unaided on
84 Post contains links Keesje : A380 is not A380F, they are two differenr aircraft. I could sum up all the things an A380 can do and the C-17 cannot but that would nonsense. Let me
85 Dougloid : Keez, you're not comparing apples to oranges here because they're too much alike, you're comparing apples to turnips. Fact is, the C17 was built with
86 Post contains images Halls120 : Nice two step! So why did YOU mention the A380?
87 RomeoKC10FE : I can't believe you guys are having this ridicuously long discussion, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN NUFF SAID!!!
88 NorCal : I didn't realize any of our allies were offering a cheaper competitor to the C-17...... Which company has been offering that aircraft since the 90s?
89 Revelation : Of course, because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about: so why did you bring it up? Nonsense It's already behind A350/B878. It'll be
90 KC135TopBoom : We need to move oversized cargo, not 700 people on one airplane So what? Actually, it can be, by lowering the level of the forward cargo floor about
91 Post contains images Keesje : The A380F is not a candidate for the requirement, so I wonder why people keep bringing it up after I mentioned the C-17 costs as much as a A380. Maybe
92 KC135TopBoom : Actually, most M-1A1/2 Abrams MBTs are moved by sealift., but the C-5 and C-17 can, if needed carry one at a time. C-130 prodtion finally deos end, w
93 Post contains links and images Keesje : The seventies YC-15 was used as the basis for the C-17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_YC-15 AMARC's YC-15, 72-1875, was later returne
94 Halls120 : Because YOU were the one who injected the A380 into this discussion in the first place! Is your memory that short that you have already forgetten?
95 KC135TopBoom : That still doesn't mean we cannot update these designs and start building them. Since all of the flight testing is already complete, the USAF can fie
96 Post contains links and images Keesje : Looking at this scenario together with the Oekraine scenario maybe looking at a NG/EADS from Mobile ain't such a bad idea afterall.. or is there some
97 Dougloid : That was a very general 'basis'. The actual aircraft that got built as the C-17 is quite a bit different in the execution, because the mission change
98 Keesje : That how it should be done. The deserts are stuffed with designs that took a different approach (e.g. blended wing airliners, sonic cruiser, concorde
99 TexL1649 : Yes, and the A400 concept was dreamed up (stolen!) originally in what, 1984? The -15 just had different avionics, wings, tail, engines, floor, length
100 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : There is no bad blood between the US and our Spanish friends. Actually, for about the first 25 or so years, Airbus kind of did that. They used Boeing
101 Post contains images F27Friendship : anyone notice the dollar is rather weak at the moment? It won;t stay like this forever (I hope so! get your economy going again you lazy SOB's! ) the
102 Revelation : I suppose we should ask the A400M designers why they went for an all composite wing and why the A350 will use even more composites than either A380 o
103 Glideslope : Disagree with this. In my circle this is the common understanding on views. IMO, most Americans (living in reality) are more concerned with the forem
104 Post contains images Glideslope : Actually, on the 380 I have not seen any "official" numbers on fuel burn. SQ says, " we are satisfied." Performance is better than expected. Ok, be s
105 F27Friendship : there are benefits for composites. For the A400M it seamed a very good option. However, the A400M is more than any other a political airplane, which
106 Halls120 : No shit the dollar is weak. We're planning our 2008 vacations - which include Europe - and the weak dollar is painfully evident. But we're coming acr
107 Keesje : Massive government purchases have been made by European countries for decades. Hundreds of all kinds of flighters, transports, heli's you name it..
108 Rheinwaldner : That's always true for smaller aircrafts. How is this factor with C130? According to some reactions it seems the biggest danger for the US are foreig
109 Arrow : deHavilland Canada made about 1600 Beavers, and 900 of them were purchased by the U.S. Army, then used extensively in Korea, Viet Nam. They still buy
110 Rheinwaldner : I agree! IIRC other examples would be Bae Hawk, PC-9. The (license built) PC-9 flies for the US in much higher numbers than US planes in Switzerland!
111 Post contains links and images Keesje : According to the magazine, Airbus has already had to turn down a chance to win a 6 billion euro order for 68 military transport planes because delays
112 Columba : I don' t believe that we will see another A380 sized plane in the next 20 years. For the time being the A380 will be the most superior aircraft of it
113 Keesje : You read & qouted me wrong. We were comparing C17 to the A380 technology.. I don't anyone is suggesting the A380 to becom a miltairy transport, I onl
114 Post contains links and images Keesje : The TP400's and scimitar props are integrated for roll out on thursday. Water ingestion and bird strike testing has also recently been completed at Te
115 RedFlyer : How much more challenging could another engine be than the current one already has been?
116 Columba : Will the aircraft get a paint job until then ?
117 Post contains links Keesje : Yes Good news is GE is developing a Turboshaft at 8000 hp for the CH53K. The heli is first priority but GE mentions possible fixed wing use. http://w
118 SP90 : Any chance Boeing or EADS will develop a cargo plane looking like the Terminator series hunter/killers with the tri-tilt-jet? That would be the next l
119 Post contains links and images Keesje : Seems unlikely IMO. Those are far sighted programs. The Osprey showed what costs and complications can do to a program. I will take many years of res
120 Post contains links Keesje : But in recent weeks, top Air Force officials seemed to waver a bit, saying during a background briefing this week that the C-17B could be an alternati
121 KC135TopBoom : A tactical version of the C-17A/ER, the proposed C-17B, would be a slightly smaller airplane. Wouldn't that compete directly with the A-400M more tha
122 Post contains images Keesje : No, I guess it would not.
123 FlyingClrs727 : Is there anything Boeing can do to cut the costs of the C-17B? The production line and design of the C-17A have been fully depreciated already.
124 Gsosbee : The cost of the R&D for the B version and any modifications to the A line would be applied to the accounting for the B. Since the B would be a shorte
125 Keesje : Doubt that, what about mission requirement for a 1.5 x C130J load / 30t (that seems to be the case).. Will congress play a role?
126 Gsosbee : The only role will be overall funding. Of course after seeing the non-movement on the tanker issue, nothing can be taken for granted.
127 Post contains links RedFlyer : Well, if Airbus can get the A400M out the door and flying, they may have a shot at a USAF contract, but it sounds like a long shot: [emphasis added] h
128 Zeke : From memory the MC-130s were somewhat more expensive than new A400Ms and are less capable. That being said, EADS in the business plan for the A400M w
129 F27Friendship : only one more reason for EADS to try to sell it to them. I guess you have heard of power8 plus by now
130 Post contains links and images Keesje : New Transports = Euro Invasion, Part Deux? ... Despite getting slapped in the recent tanker competition, EADS is banking on the market opening up. The
131 RedFlyer : Who's been denying the gap? I think the only issue has been if that gap can be filled by existing fleet types. It appears that LM and Boeing believe
132 Post contains links Keesje : That would mean no gab.. Maybe they are promoting their products. I think LM is proposing a widened aircraft probably with a bigger wing and new engi
133 Post contains links RedFlyer : It could very well be a new aircraft. And with 3,000 copies of its highly successful parentage flying, it might very well be a good sell. On the othe
134 F27Friendship : they'll have it flying by 2015 at least a lot earlier than any fat herc or C-17B
135 Post contains links RedFlyer : Are you sure about that? http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLK18507020080920
136 Texl1649 : The F-18E/F pioneered how to get a new aircraft through the US acquisition system by calling it a derivative and shaping it like the predecessor but k
137 Keesje : Your arguments sound pretty convincing. One thing that could be a handicap is the fact the western industry has shows to be unable to develop new air
138 FlyingClrs727 : Why not just take a C-17 fuselage, rewing it and put 4 turboprops on it?
139 Post contains links TexL1649 : Obviously notional, but I would guess a lot of early work has actually been done already; http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...08/09/picture-meet-th
140 Flipdewaf : Bit of gaffa tape and some tie-wraps for the engines ( I have some rated as capable of 12,000shp) and up we go, no bother! Fred
141 Post contains images Keesje : Ah, a pic thnx. I think the end result will be different. New engines, wing, cockpit section etc. Maybe this one is a first step in a "maturation" pr
142 Post contains links F27Friendship : well, LM and Boeing are surely convinced of the A400M regarding their plans. I think Bill Sweetman has a nice outlook on the situation: link
143 Post contains links Keesje : EADS executives expect that - despite the bloody tanker wars, and late flight tests - the USAF and Army will take a serious look at the A400M airlifte
144 Post contains links Keesje : Found a new video on planning & self protection systems. http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd4_IFmvlUs Btw I don't have an idea on the Herc TP400 first te
145 Post contains links Keesje : Bit popular artile but small bits of information: - Herc flight test next week - Choice of plane has been criticised after part of the C-130 melted in
146 Post contains links and images Keesje : "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard ai
147 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Expect both OEMs to be working on something bigger based on these..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...irst-flight-breaks-new-ground.html Quot
148 Post contains images Keesje : Looking at the specs mentioned, I think this is very encouraging for EADS. As linked in reply 3, the ambitious concepts have been flying on screens f
149 XT6Wagon : Sigh. NO Just NO The A400M as it exists in hardware has no STOL, has no special ability over the C130 now that the FCS is roundfiled, and you can get
150 Revelation : Seems like Keesje's best hope for this happening is if Barbara Boxer decides we need some!
151 Keesje : The A400M will be more expensive, cost additional billions. But nothing like the C-17. That aircraft is in its own league on costs. But of course you'
152 Mayor : Different missions. The Air Force doesn't expect the C-130J to be doing extreme long haul missions as the 747 would. Shot and a save!! But the A380 c
153 Mayor : Mostly because it would already be flying.
154 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think we havce personal preferences / ideas / references. Then we have a growing fleet of heavily armed vehicles operating all over the world these
155 JoeCanuck : Good thing they are proven, for sale and available. The same, sadly, cannot be said for the A400.
156 Post contains images Keesje : Be patient maybe something more versatile modern and cost efficient will be a availabel soon that is more optimized for the job. But maybe you are ri
157 Mayor : I don't think that the problem, here, is that we're comparing apples to oranges........I think the problem is that we're comparing apples to bricks. F
158 Post contains links Keesje : EADS builds case for A400M sale to USAF ... fill an anticipated airlift gap created by a wave of Lockheed Martin C-5A retirements, Boeing C-17 program
159 Revelation : It's interesting how the article talks all about EADS "building a case" for a USAF purchase, but they don't have anyone from the USAF even hinting the
160 CMB56 : Military cargo aircraft are great for moving heavy large odd sized cargos into potentiall bad situations or onto short soft airfields. I find it very
161 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : You do know that during the initial build up for Desert Shield, it was C-5s that delivered the first several M-1A-1 MBTs for the US Army. The rest ca
162 USAF336TFS : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html Keesje my good friend, I think, that only you are the only person that seriously thinks
163 CMB56 : What I meant by technology of airdrops should make the "landing under fire" risk to high value aircraft C-17 or C-130 is the article extract below. At
164 KC135TopBoom : I was under the impression the B-747F can carry smaller vehicles like Humvees, even up-armored ones. But they could not carry large armored vehicles
165 CMB56 : Correct, the 747 is limited by height of the cargo and by the dimensions of the nose door. So probably anything over a humvee would not fit. But for a
166 Post contains images Keesje : Not exactly The highest loads come by the side door.
167 KC135TopBoom : Apparently there are nearly that number of B-747-400Fs there too. You would not have to convert them (but would have to standardize the avionics and
168 Keesje : Wouldn't seem a bad idea. Cargo shuttles between big logistic centers in the US, Europe and Middle East could put a lot of pressure from cargo & tank
169 Post contains links and images keesje : It seems an EADS A400M proposal was submitted last year to the Air Mobility Command (AMC) upon their request. The concept proposes to stand-up about e
170 STT757 : The A400 would do well as a C-130H replacement, it can in no way though come close to replacing the C-5A. Not even the C-17 can replace the capacity o
171 keesje : I think the driver might be that you need a 20t C130 like capability anyway, but if the load is a bit larger a 80t C-17 is the solution. And it doesn
172 Post contains images ebbuk : You are amazing Keesje! To think you started this thread over 2 years ago and almost everyone from across the ocean, in essence, wrote you off to pre
173 sejowa : Just to reiterate from Keesje's post: "The EADS proposal was submitted last year to the Air Mobility Command (AMC) upon their request, says Neil F. Sm
174 keesje : a. I think EADS is courting Boeing, LM and NG. Those don't have a real alternative. Refusing gives your competitor an opportunity. Piece of the cake
175 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Just keep ignoring the facts, Keesje. The C-17 does have soft/short field capability, and you know it. Compared to the A-400M, the price between it a
176 Post contains images sejowa : a- Well see what transpires. I don't doubt the viability of a joint offer. Just for fun, a partnership with Boeing would be quite entertaining (never
177 STT757 : How many C-130H's are in service Active, Reserve and ANG?..
178 A342 : Except for the C-17, that statement is TOTALLY baseless. YOU DON'T KNOW when the XC-2 or C-130X would be delivered, and neither do we. And the XC-2 i
179 Stitch : The real answer is, does the USAF need this capability? The A400M / FIMA )was purposefully designed to slot above the C-130 and below the C-17 to both
180 KC135TopBoom : Nor do YOU KNOW WHEN the A-400M will be delivered, if at all. Nor do you know if Japan will export the XC-2 to the USAF, or not. We do know the first
181 A342 : Did I ever claim that? The point is, the C-130X has to be developed first. I'd say there's a 90% chance that the A400M will be available before that
182 keesje : I think there is a serious capability gab and that's the main reason behind the RFP. The A400M was specified for operational requirements, not for ke
183 Post contains images Revelation : I'm not surprised a bunch of USAF transport types would want to get an up-close and personal look at the A400M. It's kind of like the neighbors getti
184 A342 : a) Are you surprised that Lockheed (hint: they have other interests) is calling it fuzzy math? b) Until we don't how large the savings from retiring
185 Stitch : But we're in the process of disengaging from Iraq and Afghanistan and look not to be invading Iran, so one would think the demand for such an aircraf
186 Revelation : No, but I think that someone who states that they are not blinded by personal preference would want to include both sides of the story. I think you a
187 Lumberton : I wouldn't be surprised at all; I'd be shocked. AFAIK, the USAF's Air Mobility Command also asked for information on the AN-70. Were not Antonov and
188 A342 : Well, once all that becomes clear and if the USAF A400Ms would be to the same specification as the European ones, EADS could offer them another fixed
189 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps there is, Japan and KHI are talking about a commericial version, which will be an export version if they hope to sell to the likes of FedEx,
190 Post contains links and images sejowa : Erratum - I meant General Norton Schwartz - see also http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=92 Cargo hold width: C-130J = 3.12
191 A342 : But the USAF is not going to buy a commercial version. And none of those airlines will buy it either. Why should they? They don't need outsized cargo
192 JoeCanuck : What, exactly, can a A400 do that a C-17 can't? What are the comparative costs to hauling a full load in a A400 and the same load in a C-17? I can't i
193 Revelation : I've read all the recent posts in the thread, and thank everyone for their interesting comments. I agree, presuming it does go into production. I thin
194 Post contains images Stitch : I am sure Keesje will see it as a sure sign that the USAF and USN will replace their 737s with CSeries planes.
195 Post contains links and images sejowa : Well here goes... served on a platter. Hat tip to Revelation. Keesje, I appreciate the way you push and prod hapless a.netters to ever new heights of
196 XT6Wagon : Sorry but a hugely expensive engine development program on top of a hugely expensive "americanization" program, on top of the staggeringly expensive
197 Post contains images Zeke : It would be possible to carry around 6 M113s on the main deck of a 744F, the RAAF looked at this prior to getting C-17s. Not that I am aware of, a 74
198 keesje : During the last year there have been tough negotiations on who would have to pay the additional billions to bring the A400M to service. It was a comp
199 Revelation : We still don't know if there will be an A400M, or if it does go into production, what performance or features it will have. I'll point out that you t
200 Post contains images keesje : The A400M is in the same stage as the Boeing 787 and 747-8F. Not everything is known in detail yet but I guess the manufacturers have a pretty good i
201 Revelation : Really? I haven't heard Boeing refuse to honor the contracts they've signed, and I haven't heard Boeing threaten to cancel these programs, yet I have
202 Post contains images keesje : Revelation, do you really, really believe one of the EADS countries or Airbus was/is considering killing the A400M? In that case the upcoming deal is
203 JoeCanuck : Is the A400 guaranteed to be able to perform all of these tasks?
204 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, I believe UK was seriously considering walking away. The threat to jobs at brought them back into line. I think Germany and France have consider
205 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : then the question becomes, will the USAF need any new build airliftyers in 4-6 years? The USAF cannot order them if they don't know what the costs wi
206 A342 : You aren't serious, are you???
207 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : There is more than one story running in the US press about "econmic problems" within the EU. These type of problems can push any agreement with EADS
208 Revelation : Yes, it's true, but the point A342 is making is that Turkey is not currently a member of the EU, even though they are trying to join. In any case it
209 Revelation : I don't see an order for a new fleet of airlifters until there is some mission that the current ones can't fulfill. Some suggest that mission is to t
210 Post contains links and images keesje : Yes, and now back to todays news: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61M2OX20100223?type=marketsNews http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...waits-
211 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Thank you. This is interesting. EADS has kicked the door open to demand more money in the future, but they get to finally settle their 2009 book keep
212 Revelation : The article says "The basis of an agreement has been reached" which "will result in a political declaration of support". Yes, it takes a lot of uncon
213 Post contains links Revelation : Sorry, keesje, but it seems your next chance to complain about unconditional support, denial and patriotism won't come till at least March 8th after
214 Post contains images Baroque : Oh my ears and whiskers, he really is!!! Some time these A400M threads are going to be great examples of something. But accuracy in politics is not g
215 Post contains links Lumberton : Given this plan, I just don't see the A400M wearing a star & bars. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4527338&c=AME&s=AIR
216 KC135TopBoom : With the good possibility of Congress changing political parties this year, I just don't see the USAF, or any other military branch being forced to op
217 Post contains links keesje : The A400M sales campaign in the US will start second half of 2010. They are aiming at about 210 aircraft for the USAF. http://seattletimes.nwsource.co
218 TeamAmerica : And we can all wish them "Good Luck" with that. At a time when aircraft that the USAF dearly wants are being cancelled (e.g. F-22) the probability of
219 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Why does the USAF need another 210 airlifters, esspecially of a new type? Who came up with that number and why did it grow from the 118 number EADS h
220 Stitch : The cynic in me says that with the A400M cost-overuns, they need 210 sales to generate the level of profit they'd originally calculated with 118 fram
221 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Great point;
222 TeamAmerica : I was just trying to be diplomatic. Last I heard the terrain-following capability was being deleted from the A400M, and in-flight refueling deferred
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008
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...
First Stretched C-130J-30 For Usaf Completed posted Tue Jul 3 2001 00:10:06 by Flight152
Eurofighter For Usaf posted Sun Jan 20 2008 15:42:16 by TheSonntag
A330 Line 871 - For Usaf?! posted Thu Jun 7 2007 21:37:38 by RobK
Time To Split Off The First "A" In Nasa? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 21:46:42 by N328KF
First A400M Composite Wing Complete posted Wed Nov 29 2006 16:32:37 by RichardPrice
A400M For Nato? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 22:12:16 by RIXrat
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
New Stealth Aircraft Under Contract For Usaf posted Sat Jun 24 2006 23:05:17 by RichardPrice
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Fighter For USN Bombers For Usaf posted Tue May 16 2006 23:57:59 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format