Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4240 times:
After the roll out of the A400M last week I was wondering what nations apart from the launch customers would be interested in the A400M.
Nato countries :
USA and Canada:
The USAF is rumored from time to time but I don't believe it. They would rather order additional C17s and C130Js.
How about the Navy or the Marines Corp ? They will need to replace some C130s, soon, don't they ?
The USCG is also an option and they have a;ready a large fleet of European made aircraft. The A400M might be a little too big for them.
Canada is not in the market anymore as they have ordered the C17 as well.
In Europe Italy and Portugal were once part of the project but dropped it so it is doubtful that they will order it again in the near future.
How about Greece ?
Non Nato Countries
Australia:
Already a large EADS customer A330MRTT, NH 90, Tiger but
has ordered the C17 doubtful to order new transport aircraft soon.
Israel:
Doubtful US made aircraft would be preferred, also A400M might be too big for them.
Saudi Arabia:
Always a potential customer for European military aircraft
Any other suggestions ?
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4211 times:
You have summed the problem with this aircraft up fairly well - the market is Europe and is small. Other than the US, military airlift is secondary. Not sure the program is worth it, but it is a jobs and industry program and as such serves the region well.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 65 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4205 times:
Quoting Columba (Thread starter): The USAF is rumored from time to time but I don't believe it.
The US has already asked Airbus to submit a proposal for the A400M to them, they have politely declined at the moment until they get the aircraft sorted out and shipped off to customers they have signed up for the project.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4190 times:
I believe if the aircraft had been available 2-3 years earlier it could have won Australia and Canada. This could have been considered a huge success as these markets are US dominated. To win the USA as a customer would surely be the biggest possible sales success for Airbus Military.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4147 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 2): The US has already asked Airbus to submit a proposal for the A400M to them, they have politely declined at the moment until they get the aircraft sorted out and shipped off to customers they have signed up for the project.
Given the fact the A400M is sized between the C-130J and the C-17A, it would be a good choice for US forces. USAF is likely candidate; don't see US Navy or Marines buying the plane. I can, on the other hand, see perhaps new build airplanes for the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve. How many would be purchased? Now, that's hard to say.
The question comes to mind whether Airbus would set up a factory here in the US to build the planes for the US Armed Forces.
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4136 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 4): Given the fact the A400M is sized between the C-130J and the C-17A, it would be a good choice for US forces. USAF is likely candidate; don't see US Navy or Marines buying the plane. I can, on the other hand, see perhaps new build airplanes for the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve. How many would be purchased? Now, that's hard to say.
The question comes to mind whether Airbus would set up a factory here in the US to build the planes for the US Armed Forces.
Any funds that might go to the A400M will go to more C-17's as they should - it is a more capable airplane.
Also, after the dust settles on the KC-45, don't expect any foreign made/designed/fabricated airplanes to be purchased with US taxpayer money.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4122 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 5): Also, after the dust settles on the KC-45, don't expect any foreign made/designed/fabricated airplanes to be purchased with US taxpayer money.
This is an election year. Things might be different in 2010 or 11 when A400M is flying and C-17 production is finally shut down.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4122 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 5): Any funds that might go to the A400M will go to more C-17's as they should - it is a more capable airplane.
Don't think that they should go for the C-17. The C17 is a more capable plane but it is bigger and uses more fuel. You don't need a C-17 for all missions. Sure you also have the C130J but maybe an aircraft in between would be a good solution.
Please don't take this anti C17. I love that aircraft and would wish that Germany would buy a few on top of their A400 fleet just as the Royal Air Force.
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 5): Also, after the dust settles on the KC-45, don't expect any foreign made/designed/fabricated airplanes to be purchased with US taxpayer money.
I would always want the best solution sadly in Europe as well as in the US a lot of nationalist ideas come to play regarding military aircraft purchases.
The Nato exist for half a decade and Europe and the US are strong allies it should not be a problem to buy a US product for France and Germany and it should not be a problem for the US to buy an Airbus if it is better as a Lockheed Martin or Boeing aircraft.
Especially if the aircraft is build under a license or manufactured in a plant in Alabama
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
NorCal From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1606 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4065 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 7): Don't think that they should go for the C-17. The C17 is a more capable plane but it is bigger and uses more fuel. You don't need a C-17 for all missions.
At current prices the C-17 is a cheaper plane to buy (per pound of cargo hauled). Look at the current rates the USAF is paying for them (not the 1993 rates) and you'll see it is quite a bargain. It also doesn't make sense to add another fleet type into the inventory.
We might not need the C-17 for every mission, but the USAF seems to buy the biggest most capable planes they can. Even if it does burn more total fuel, isn't needed for all missions, and hasn't had all the ownership costs calculated into its bid. Tax payers be damned!
It seems only fair that the USAF apply the same rules to all aircraft procurement.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11060 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4065 times:
The main market, at first, for A400M may look small to some, but they include AF's who require quite large fleets.
Germany, France being obvious, the smaller RAF order for 25 might well be expanded in time, but no orders would be placed for quite a few years in their case.
Some AF's will likely buy more later, with a AAR tanker role in mind, rather than going for the airliner based platform, this might yet include France, if budgets prevent an A330 buy.
(Another RAF additional order factor here, the planned buy of A330's would not be enough in extended periods of operational tempo like the past 5 years or so).
So we could see the original customer base ordering more, enough to add several 10's of extra airframes.
In the past few years, several unlikely AF's have looked at C-17, such as Sweden, in part with tasks such as relief after events like the 2004 Asian Tsunami.
The expense of C-17 for a smaller AF, have mitigated against these, with the exceptions of those actively involved in 'out of area' conflicts, like Canada and Australia.
But, A400M will offer a much greater capability than C-130J, while being more affordable than C-17. And what these AF's have looked at is more capability than a C-130.
I'd be prepared to see some A400M surprise sales, especially once in service.
And it seems that C-17 is unlikely to be in production for that much longer.
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4064 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 7): The C17 is a more capable plane but it is bigger and uses more fuel.
That's the same thing many people say about EADS proposal in the KC-45 bid, yet there are those who say that despite being bigger and using more fuel, it is "better" than the Boeing proposal. Don't you always want the "best" you can get, regardless of any other factors?
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4037 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 9): , this might yet include France
France is likely to place follow-on orders, they did that with the Transall and the Breguet Atlantic.
Germany on the other hand has a different approach they buy more in the beginning and keep them very long. No follow on orders on ay aircraft type (if you don't include the F4 which was bought when the RF4 was already in service).
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 10): it is "better" than the Boeing proposal. Don't you always want the "best" you can get, regardless of any other factors?
My point was that I don't see the need for an expensive C17 for the National Guard or AIr Force Reserve as suggested. My statement regarding the C17 was meant in that context.
The A330 is more capable. The 767 is twenty years older and the A330 really offers more flexibility of its lifespan.
With the C17 it is different you also have the C130J if the size of the C17 is not needed.
I don't know if the USAF would need an aircraft in between the C17 and C130J.
National Guard and Reserve in my opinion have no need for an aircraft bigger than the C130J.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4030 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 11): The 767 is twenty years older and the A330 really offers more flexibility of its lifespan.
Can you elaborate on this? The 767 was launched in 1978 and the A330 was launched in 1987. That seems to be less than ten, not even close to twenty years.
BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
The US Law makers Just passed the Bill giving the USAF additional C-17s so the US in unlikly to need A400M at all.
Also with Canada and other Nato Countries Buying Small Fleets of C-17s to operate together it could be the start of somthing bigger.
With the Mid east nations buying C-17 having started the A400M may see lean times ahead if EADS dosent get any more orders than it has.
The RAF could as GDB has said Use some as Tankers similar to its C-130H fleet that operate in Places that rearly do not require a larger Jet Tanker transport.
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4283 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3929 times:
I don't forsee the USAF ordering the A400M. The C-130 continues to solider on for them in the H and J models. In fact, the USAF just ordered C-130Js to replace some of their AFSOC C-130s. Right now, the USAF is downsizing their cargo requirements. They have found that the C-130s are to big for many of the missions in the current GWOT. That is why they are buying the C-27.
Even if you take out the USAF there are several other users that will want this new platform. European Air Forces will place follow on orders and the type will see success in the export market.
It will be interesting to see how the market responds to the A400, C-130 and C-17. The C-17s seem to be gathering quite a following over the last year. Let's see what countries decide now that there are 3 actual platforms for sale.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3903 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 2): The US has already asked Airbus to submit a proposal for the A400M to them, they have politely declined at the moment until they get the aircraft sorted out and shipped off to customers they have signed up for the project.
So they are not entertaining any potentially new customers, not even submitting proposals, until after the aircraft is sorted out to existing customers? Interesting business model.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11060 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
I would not compare A400M and C-17 to 767 and A330.
Both of the latter were built to do basically the same thing, just one is newer and somewhat bigger than than the other.
C-17 and A400M were designed for quite separate requirements for different customers.
A comparison of cargo cross sections show how A400M fit's neatly between C-130J and C-17 too.
The problem with C-130J is that it's the same cargo cross section as the legacy Herk's.
Writing specs for 'C-130J transportability for military gear such as lighter/medium armoured vehicles is a tough one.
As the US well knows.
Beta From United States, joined Nov 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3805 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
The US has already asked Airbus to submit a proposal for the A400M to them, they have politely declined at the moment until they get the aircraft sorted out and shipped off to customers they have signed up for the project.
Source(s) please. Don't you think it is routine to send out inquiry to manufactures of new, exciting product, which your military or your potential adversaries' military may or may not need. It's just diligence in procurement planning.
I see a good market for the A400M in Asia, and ME, where the C17 is just too expensive, and the C130 might be just a bit small and short-ranged. This is also a market, where there is growth in defence spending. So the A400M has a bright future ahead in the export market.
I just do not see the USAF would buy this mil transport. By the time the USAF done with buying C17, and needs replacement for the Herc, I'm sure Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop would submit plans for a brand new plane. Besides, why the AF would buy a dozens or so new type of plane, and complicate the logistics/maintenance, when the USAF has hundreds of C17, and thousands of C130 at its disposal.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 65 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12): Can you elaborate on this? The 767 was launched in 1978 and the A330 was launched in 1987. That seems to be less than ten, not even close to twenty years.
This is splitting hairs somewhat, the A330-200 was not launched until the mid 90s.
From the FAA TCDS
Model 767-200 - approved July 30, 1982
Airbus A330-203 –approved November 1, 2002 (233,000 kg MTOW GE-CF6-80E1A3
engines), the KC-45 base airframe
The A330-200 was first certified, March 31, 1998.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 15): So they are not entertaining any potentially new customers, not even submitting proposals, until after the aircraft is sorted out to existing customers? Interesting business model.
USAF proposals are not one page documents, or advertisements from trade a plane, they take months to prepare, and depending on the complexity, can cost millions.
I would think to put one together would take resources away from getting the aircraft to customers that have ordered it. The production line is sold out for many years, Airbus has a lot of time to get back to the USAF.
Besides, obviously Airbus has been reading a.net and have come to the conclusion from the US based posters that they do not need anything apart from the C130 and C17, they have said so, it must be fact, it must be the view of the entire USAF.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
Quoting Beta (Reply 17): Don't you think it is routine to send out inquiry to manufactures of new, exciting product, which your military or your potential adversaries' military may or may not need. It's just diligence in procurement planning.
I believe they did something similar with the A380, leading to a flurry of rumors about it being a replacement for the VC-25
Beta From United States, joined Nov 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3787 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 18): I would think to put one together would take resources away from getting the aircraft to customers that have ordered it. The production line is sold out for many years, Airbus has a lot of time to get back to the USAF.
This is just too funny to pass up. Zeke, you really think it would take production resources away from putting a Power Point slides together, which Airbus might just have the template already ready to fill in with the appropriate information and numbers??? Do you really think Airbus would blow a chance at a multi-billion sale to the USAF by declining to provide a proposal just so that they could focus on fulfilling a few dozen planes for Malaysia? Yeah, sure.
Airbus to USAF: you know, we would like to offer you a proposal as you requested, but right now we have to focus our resources to make sure Malaysia get their dozen planes, and we cant spare a new college grad to put together a power slides for you. So come back in 5 years.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3772 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 18): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 15):
So they are not entertaining any potentially new customers, not even submitting proposals, until after the aircraft is sorted out to existing customers? Interesting business model.
USAF proposals are not one page documents, or advertisements from trade a plane, they take months to prepare, and depending on the complexity, can cost millions.
This is not an RFP we're talking about (such as the KC-X), which would cost in the millions or even tens of millions. This is a pretty basic proposal, which I would liken to any other sales pitch that Airbus gives on an ongoing basis to any number of commercial customers. While the proposal to the USAF would not result in a sale, it is advertising nonetheless and provides them with exposure to a very important and the largest military customer in the world - a customer that Airbus has stated countless times they are anxious to do business with on multiple fronts. So whether the proposal costs tens of thousands to prepare or a few million dollars, it would be money very well spent. And I don't for a second, nor does anyone else, buy your preposterous statement that "Airbus politely declined" the opportunity to go before the largest air force in the world and, if nothing else, develop contacts and establish critical business relationships. That is sheer nonsense and your post is completely transparent for what it is: another opportunity to poke a finger in the eye of Boeing.
Beta From United States, joined Nov 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3651 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): And I don't for a second, nor does anyone else, buy your preposterous statement that "Airbus politely declined" the opportunity to go before the largest air force in the world and, if nothing else, develop contacts and establish critical business relationships. That is sheer nonsense and your post is completely transparent for what it is: another opportunity to poke a finger in the eye of Boeing.
The suggestion that Airbus "politely declined" requires a suspension of disbelief, my friend!
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 887 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
On the payload-range curve, it falls somewhere around where the C-141 was (but being more capable), and the C-141 served the USAF quite well. So who knows. But let's leave the USAF debate aside - I consider it quite unlikely to happen in the mid-term anyway.
To search for potential A400M customers, look at the two non-European ones: South Africa and Malaysia. Mid-sized emerging countries that could not afford to maintain a small fleet of C-17s, nor need them, but would love to have an aircraft that offers them more capabilities than their current C-130s or An-12s. There's a large list of countries that fit that profile. That's where the A400M comes in.
Also, for countries which may choose to go for a single aircraft type for all their medium to heavy airlift needs, the A400M would be the choice as it can act as a C-130 or as a reduced-version C-17. Spain will be going down this path, as well as probably Germany and France.
So in my opinion, there is certainly a market outside Europe, but I doubt we'll see any orders until the aircraft is flying and production is rolling.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3533 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 15): So they are not entertaining any potentially new customers, not even submitting proposals, until after the aircraft is sorted out to existing customers? Interesting business model.
I think the European Airforces financed the development and battle need the A400M capasity. They will not allow any further delays in their fleet replacement programs.
The C130J had a very long maturation period and will not be able the fill the 27t armed vehicle requirement. The C-17 is a goos alternative, it's 4 x as big.. & at least three time as expensive.
I think EADS wil play this softly. Probably a friendly tour along some major US AFB's taking pilots & generals for a ride, demonstrate cruise & dash speed, TO performance, terrain following, have them hold the stick.. http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mcockpit1024.jpg, exchange squadron insigna's, dvd's etc, have dinner. Have informal talks with NG or even Boeing. Visit DOD and congress. No sales pitch just a relaxed hopitality tour. And wait..
There's a large fleet of old Herc's. I think the USAF will get horny.
ACW367 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3682 times:
Japan
They are doing more long range deployments in support of Humanitarian disasters and have even gone to Iraq. They only have old C130H and the indigenous C-1 Jets. The A400M would be a good option for them.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3690 times:
Quoting ACW367 (Reply 26): The A400M would be a good option for them.
Japan developed about the only comparable aircraft, the C-10. Never exported any militairy equipment.
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 25): They might, but Congress will quickly shoot it down. (See the KC-45 debate which is about jobs not the best airplane for the job.)
It's gonna be a serious political task to have the USAF say anything inbetween the cheap but 50 yr old 20t C-130 and 80 t $300.000.000 C-17 is not needed.
Maybe the USAF should skip the pilots / mission planners and ask congress right away what equipment is needed. If it must be LM or Boeing that makes defining operation requirements a lot easier.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3656 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 27): Maybe the USAF should skip the pilots / mission planners and ask congress right away what equipment is needed. If it must be LM or Boeing that makes defining operation requirements a lot easier.
Keesje, I've been reading your posts since the June 18 GAO decision was announced and I don't think there's but 2 where you didn't take a swipe at the GAO or U.S. Congress in some way, shape, or form. It's getting a little tiring. Why don't you give it a rest?
In the meantime, maybe you'd like to read up on how EADS dumped a viable engine choice on the A400M in order to go with the politically correct home-grown version. That might give you some relief from the obvious angst you've been enduring for the past 12 days.
NorCal From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1606 posts, RR: 3 Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3632 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 24): The C130J had a very long maturation period and will not be able the fill the 27t armed vehicle requirement. The C-17 is a goos alternative, it's 4 x as big.. & at least three time as expensive.
The C-17 isn't "at least" 3x as expensive as the A400 (you are probably using your 1993 numbers again). The USAF is currently paying $260 million for each C-17. The last price I saw for the A400 was 100 million Euro per copy (about $157 million at current exchange rates). With the delays and associated cost over runs, the unit price will probably move up.
At current exchange rates, nations should consider the C-17, it is a great aircraft and quite a steal right now.
Per pound of cargo hauled the C-17 is the cheapest option you can get
2 A400s cost 200 million Euro or approximately $314 Million
2 A400s haul 164,000 lbs of cargo
1 C-17 costs $260 million
1 C-17 hauls 170,900 lbs of cargo
The C-17 is the most capable transport available for sale in the western world. It would easily beat the A400 in any RFP that rewards extra credit for exceeding the RFP.....
The USAF would (well at least they should) consider the extra costs of buying the A400. The additional training costs and spares required to operate another type in the fleet.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4283 posts, RR: 7 Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
In my opinion, the USAF isn't going to buy the A400M. Heck, they just got warm to the idea of buying more C-130Js. The USAF is going to continue to purchase C-17s because it is a very capable aircraft and it fills both the C-141 void while also offering an alternative to C-130s in inter-theater lift. So, with new C-17s and a few C-130Js coming on line, they are set. Let's not also forget the program to re propeller the C-130Hs.
The USAF's feelings toward inter-theater lift is, "It doesn't have to be fast, it doesn't have to be sexy, it doesn't have to be technoligically advanced. What it has to do is show up when we ask it to." The C-130 fleet has been doing that since the beginning of time. You would think that at this point, the C-130 replacement would be important. You couldn't be more wrong. Ancient C-130Es are straining into the Iraq/Afghanistan/Southwest Asian sky as I type. Day in and day out these old beasts fire up in 100+ degree temperatures and carry the supply burden. The C-130H model is not that old and C-130Js continue to trickle in a few at a time. Inter-theater lift is a pickup truck and why spend money on that when there are F-22s to finance and a F-35 to get down the pipe? Don't forget the A-10 modernization program and bringing all 35 flavors of the sexy F-16 toward a common cockpit.
When all is said and done, the C-130 will be replaced but not by the A400M. Recently, the USAF decided to replace some of their older AFSOC C-130s with new C-130J models. I almost choked when I read that the AF was actually buying new C-130Js and an act of Congress or God was not necessary. While the J model will replace some aircraft, it has been made known that the eventual fleet replacement type will be a brand new, designed from scratch platform. At that point in time, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and EADS are all going to bow their heads because the golden goose will truly be the replacement of the USAFs entire C-130 fleet.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3547 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 29): Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
The C130J had a very long maturation period and will not be able the fill the 27t armed vehicle requirement. The C-17 is a goos alternative, it's 4 x as big.. & at least three time as expensive.
The C-17 isn't "at least" 3x as expensive as the A400 (you are probably using your 1993 numbers again). The USAF is currently paying $260 million for each C-17. The last price I saw for the A400 was 100 million Euro per copy (about $157 million at current exchange rates). With the delays and associated cost over runs, the unit price will probably move up.
As you can see I was comparing the C-130 and C17. I think a C-17 is 5x as expense. Price wise the C-17 is in A380 territory..
Quoting NorCal (Reply 29): Per pound of cargo hauled the C-17 is the cheapest option you can get
2 A400s cost 200 million Euro or approximately $314 Million
2 A400s haul 164,000 lbs of cargo
1 C-17 costs $260 million
1 C-17 hauls 170,900 lbs of cargo
The C-17 is the most capable transport available for sale in the western world. It would easily beat the A400 in any RFP that rewards extra credit for exceeding the RFP.....
Maybe the big Antonov are even cheaper per lbs and can carry more too.
Before we loose ourselves in praising the C-17 lets not forget it got nearly killed a few times because of extreme cost overruns and was plagued by technical difficulties. It claims a lot of tankers to do long haul and its yesterday technology, not todays. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm
It does good work now and is sold is small numbers. No competition helps too. Still I think switching to C-17's if the Herc's prove too small will be supported by a little group in congress only.
Quoting CX747 (Reply 30): When all is said and done, the C-130 will be replaced but not by the A400M.
Lets talk again in 4 yrs when the C130E & H aren't looking so fresh anymore and the army wants to ship around heli's and armed vehicles..
If the were talking the Boeing C-400M they probably would have been ordered already..
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 31): Before we loose ourselves in praising the C-17 lets not forget it got nearly killed a few times because of extreme cost overruns and was plagued by technical difficulties.
NorCal From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1606 posts, RR: 3 Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3406 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 31): As you can see I was comparing the C-130 and C17. I think a C-17 is 5x as expense. Price wise the C-17 is in A380 territory..
Well we could buy the Kawasaki C-X from the Japanese and get an aircraft with a bigger payload than A400. The C-X isn't ready now (neither is the A400), but our C-130s don't need to be replaced now. The C-X would also be much closer in size to the C-130 and about half the price of the A400 (supposed to be $80 million vs $157 million).
Quoting Keesje (Reply 31): Maybe the big Antonov are even cheaper per lbs and can carry more too.
Probably, but if you read my entire quote you will see I said "western world." No countries from the west are going to buy Russian equipment.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 31): Before we loose ourselves in praising the C-17 lets not forget it got nearly killed a few times because of extreme cost overruns and was plagued by technical difficulties
It is not like the A400 has been a walk in the park by any measure. It has been delayed years with engine problems. You shouldn't keep bringing up the cost overruns of the C-17 because those happened a long time ago and are no longer affecting the program. The C-17 today sells for $260 million while the A400 sells for $157 million. The $157 million isn't the final price, it will increase because the A400 has suffered delays and technical problems
Quoting Keesje (Reply 31): It claims a lot of tankers to do long haul and its yesterday technology, not todays.
The A400 has 600 miles less than the C-17 at max payload so it'll have to gas up more frequently. You would also have to send 2 A400s to do the job of one C-17. That means 2 tankers for every fill up (the second one might run out of gas waiting for the first one to finish if there was only one tanker). The C-17 can only take 131,600 lbs of gas when flying with max payload so it only needs to be serviced by one tanker (The KC-135 can do that perfectly)
Since the question is about C-130 replacement:
If you were to load both a C-17 and an A400 with a C-130 load (about 40,000 lbs) you will find that the C-17 has 1700nm more range than an A400 (less tankers needed for the C-17 again).
If you were to run an RFP that rewards "extra credit" then the C-17 would smoke the A400 since it is the more capable transport. That is of course if you ignore the size of the aircraft you are replacing.....
However we haven't really answered if there is a need to replace the C-130 with something bigger. I don't think the A400 is that aircraft as it is much bigger, much more expensive, and not as useful. It is wedged in the middle of the C-130 and C-17. If the A400 were capable of hauling a MBT then I think it would warrant a more serious look.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
Venus6971 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 1085 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 7): Don't think that they should go for the C-17. The C17 is a more capable plane but it is bigger and uses more fuel. You don't need a C-17 for all missions. Sure you also have the C130J but maybe an aircraft in between would be a good solution.
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 10): That's the same thing many people say about EADS proposal in the KC-45 bid, yet there are those who say that despite being bigger and using more fuel, it is "better" than the Boeing proposal. Don't you always want the "best" you can get, regardless of any other factors?
you beat me to it moose
Quoting CX747 (Reply 14): Right now, the USAF is downsizing their cargo requirements.
Again, my post was in response to the suggestion that the C17 would go to Air Force Reserve or National Guard and I don't think even if the C17 is a very capable plane is needed for there.
The cargo aircraft decision is totally different from the tanker.
If I only have one aircraft to do the job KC 45 (which will likely replace both the KC 135 and KC 10 at some point) the more bigger and better aircraft is indeed the better solution.
The cargo fleet of the USAF always consisted of several aircraft types:
C-5 large
C-141 midsize
C-130 small
now it is
C-5 large
C-17 midsize
C130 small
The question is what will the USAF do if the C-17 will go out of production soon.
As they also have a bulk of older C130s to replace the A400M could be indeed be a good solution for the USAF as they can replace the older C130 with it and have and aircraft that is close to the C-17 which would offer them more flexibility. This is indeed the only possibility on how I see the A400M in USAF colors.
If not the C17 and C130 combo is a very good way for the USAF. Both aircraft are already in service and would not be too expensive to buy.
The main problem I see with the USAF cargo fleet are not the midsize and smaller cargo aircraft but the large one. The C 5 even if modernised will not last forever and it will take several years to develop a new aircraft for this task.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
As a military air lifter ? Hardly imaginable no roll on roll off capability and I am not sure if heavy equipment like a tank will fit in it.
Maybe a license build An 124 with modern avionics and engines (maybe from the 747-8I) would be an option. But I doubt the US would go for a former Soviet design.
But still, that plane would be real awesome
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
...maybe we could try to orient this thread towards other potential customers??? But I guess my calls will be in vain - why have one C-17-vs-A400M-vs-C-130-for-the-USAF-debate on one thread if you can have two on two threads, right?
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
What about Sweden, they were interested in the C-17 once after the Tsunami ?
Any chances here ?
Quoting R2rho (Reply 23): To search for potential A400M customers, look at the two non-European ones: South Africa and Malaysia. Mid-sized emerging countries that could not afford to maintain a small fleet of C-17s, nor need them, but would love to have an aircraft that offers them more capabilities than their current C-130s or An-12s. There's a large list of countries that fit that profile. That's where the A400M comes in.
I don't think the two non European customer give an indication on other possible customers:
In Africa I don't see many possible customers maybe Egypt.
In Asia: Japan is doubtful as it is as hard for European companies to enter as Israel same goes for South Korea. Maybe Thailand and Indonesia but do they need an aircraft of that size ?
India ? Usually buys Russian freighters with the exception of a few C130s recently.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11060 posts, RR: 83 Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3252 times:
What is this obsession with some in directly comparing the A400M to the C-17, for larger AF's at least?
It's fairly obvious that in these cases they are complementary.
Of course if it really was a load of rubbish no good to anyone, they'd be nothing to worry about.
Not than I can see where there is anything anyway. Not to the C-17 at least.
(Saying the C-17 is more capable is like saying the same of 767 and 777).
Costs, (which as stated, fluctuate), are also about the operating of a type too.
Then there is the initial large production run for the partner nations. A more secure production future into the medium term too.
A400M might be a threat to further C-130J sales though.
If LM had built an all new, wider cargo compartment type, instead of the C-130 upgrade, probably A400M would not have got started at all.
The USAF would have more capability too.
Given the time it took to make the C-130J fully operational, the time difference in getting the capability might not have been so different either.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3191 times:
I think Airbus militairy will make a list of all potential customers, then filter out all that have more then say 8 aircraft, haven't ordered C-130J or , have a healthy financial defnse budget, good support infrastructure and are not committed to Antonov.
Wiki provides a (surprisingly) good list of C-130 operators. If I did the marketing I would put them in a speadsheet and start adding data such as age of the existing fleet.
Possible customers I could pick out (without further research)
- Algeria (has 21 C-130s, do they have oil ?)
- India is big & has requirements, buys from anybody, upping their requirements it seems
- Indonesia (big country lots of islands, 3 squadrons and oil money)
- Singapore (dependent on transport, rich)
- Korea (how binded to US?)
- Italy, (European wealthy NAto country/ air force)
- Israel would fit them perfectly but politics / must compensate US support
- Saudi has big varied oldish C130 fleet and lots of money..
- Canada 6 squadron of C130's replace all by 4x a big C-17's?
- Brazil, big country big requirements
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 1 Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3156 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 38): As a military air lifter ? Hardly imaginable no roll on roll off capability and I am not sure if heavy equipment like a tank will fit in it.
That is why the nose on the 747F's hinge upwards. The C-5 was eventually chosen because of its roll-on roll-off capability.
HanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 545 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): Canada 6 squadron of C130's replace all by 4x a big C-17's?
4 C-17s and 17 C-130Js (in the process of being acquired) will form the backbone of the Canadian airlift fleet. The C-130Js are replacing the C-130E models, the C-17s are an upgrade (no such previous capability) and also they replace a number of Hercs.
Personally, I advocated that the 4 C-17s be supplemented by 17 A400s, but the CF and the Government are enamoured by US made products, that and the long wait for A400s and urgent operational needs (Afghanistan) ensured a C-130J win. Hence the reason that the C-130 is a no bid contract
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4283 posts, RR: 7 Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3110 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 34): Quoting CX747 (Reply 14):
Right now, the USAF is downsizing their cargo requirements.
huh
The USAF has found the C-130 to be to large for some of the missions it flies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Resupplying small SF detachments does not require a C-130 and the Air Force and Army have had issues in resupply operations. In order to solve the issue, the JCA (Joint Cargo Aircraft) competition was held and the C-27J Spartan was chosen as the winner. Alenia and L3 are the two contractors and the aircraft will be assembled in Jacksonville Florida. Both the USA and USAF will receive new build C-27s and operate them in similar but different fashions.
The C-27 will help both services in different manners. For quite some time, the US Army has been making due with AANG C-23C "Sherpas" as their main fixed wing cargo aircraft. These aircraft are extremely busy and need to be put out to pasture. C-27s will allow for the Army to better support their troops in the field and enable them to operate the aircraft in a manner they see fit.
As stated earlier, the USAF's issue is the C-130's size is not necessary for many of the missions it flies. The C-27 will allow the AF to operate a more economical aircraft to support small SF detachments and free up C-130s for missions that require their size and range. It will also allow the C-130 crews a bit of a breather. The vast majority of cargo hauled inter-theater by aircraft with USAF on the side is by the C-130. The C-27 is actually an old "flame" for the USAF because they operated the C-27 for many years, out of Howard AFB, Panama. Supposedly, the C-27s will be sent to Reserve and ANG squadrons that have lost F-16s.
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 887 posts, RR: 1 Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2937 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): - Algeria (has 21 C-130s, do they have oil ?)
Could be a candidate, along with Morocco. Sarkozy may want to sell them some planes, who knows
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): - Indonesia (big country lots of islands, 3 squadrons and oil money)
Could be... add Thailand too.
Quoting Columba (Reply 40): What about Sweden, they were interested in the C-17 once after the Tsunami ?
Very good candidate, comparable to Spain in some ways: they would love a C-17 but buying just 1-2 of them isn't worth it, too small a fleet. I could totally see them going for the A400M.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): - Italy, (European wealthy NAto country/ air force)
Italy has been buying American lately and under Berlusconi will continue to do so. Not very likely to happen.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): - Canada 6 squadron of C130's replace all by 4x a big C-17's?
Never. Canada has already decided for a combination of C-130s and C-17s, they would not add another a/c type, IMO.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): - Brazil, big country big requirements
Good candidate. The kind of country that could go for an all-A400M fleet for their airlift needs. Colombia, Argentina, Mexico perhaps could grab a few as well?
Quoting Keesje (Reply 42): - Saudi has big varied oldish C130 fleet and lots of money..
They have bought Typhoons, so could the A400M be next?
HanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 545 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 47): Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
- Canada 6 squadron of C130's replace all by 4x a big C-17's?
Never. Canada has already decided for a combination of C-130s and C-17s, they would not add another a/c type, IMO.
Canada will indeed likely add another type, but it will likely be the C-27 to replace the Buffalo fleet. There will be no need for CF to acquire the A400 as their airlift capability will be provided by C-17s, C-130s, C-27s and the A-310s.
This is not at all a bad fleet for the CF. Again, it would have made more sense for the fleet to be C-17s, A400s, C-27s and the A330 MRTT. A country the size of Canada and with the worldwide nature of our operations needs as much airlift as it can reasonably afford. I would always err on the side of caution and try to buy the most airlift capability that is possible, but I wouldn't issue a blank cheque, after all there are many areas that the CF need urgent re-equipping.
The CF will do fine with the fleet they (will) have, although I will be curious to see what they will buy when it comes to time to replace the C-130H fleet. More C-130Js or a new cargo lifter that will be developed by the US to be a C-130 replacement?
TGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2901 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 47): Quoting Columba (Reply 40):
What about Sweden, they were interested in the C-17 once after the Tsunami ?
Very good candidate, comparable to Spain in some ways: they would love a C-17 but buying just 1-2 of them isn't worth it, too small a fleet. I could totally see them going for the A400M.
Agree. I would love to see some C-17s though, perhaps if bought together with the other NBG countries for NBG operations. A400M could be possible, but with the cuts seen in the defense budget, who knows...
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 65 Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
Quoting Beta (Reply 20): This is just too funny to pass up. Zeke, you really think it would take production resources away from putting a Power Point slides together, which Airbus might just have the template already ready to fill in with the appropriate information and numbers???
The USAF have already had presentations from Airbus on the A400M.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): This is not an RFP we're talking about (such as the KC-X), which would cost in the millions or even tens of millions.
They have talked to them over the AMC-X - Advanced Mobility Concept Aircraft, ACCA - Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft, basically the requirement comes from vehicles like the Army Stryker vehicle, and the were looking for a 35,000 kg class transport aircraft for that, which is what the A400M is.
Quoting NorCal (Reply 29): Per pound of cargo hauled the C-17 is the cheapest option you can get
2 A400s cost 200 million Euro or approximately $314 Million
2 A400s haul 164,000 lbs of cargo
1 C-17 costs $260 million
1 C-17 hauls 170,900 lbs of cargo
"The 300,000-lb. A400M is twice the size of a C-130J and half the size (and price) of a C-17. With an 81,500-lb. payload and twice the volume of a CC-130J, the A400M will haul loads that are too large for the C-130, including a pair of Tiger helicopters with their rotor heads in place or modern infantry fighting vehicles."
NorCal From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1606 posts, RR: 3 Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2682 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 50): "The 300,000-lb. A400M is twice the size of a C-130J and half the size (and price) of a C-17. With an 81,500-lb. payload and twice the volume of a CC-130J, the A400M will haul loads that are too large for the C-130, including a pair of Tiger helicopters with their rotor heads in place or modern infantry fighting vehicles."
Those numbers are out of date, the A400 is more like 65% of the cost of a C-17 for a little less than 1/2 the capability. The C-17 costs $240 million per copy as of the most recent USAF plan to purchase. The A400 is 100 million Euros or about $157 million at current exchange rates. The 100 million Euro cost for the A400 is an older number and doesn't account for the extra expenses that the will likely be added on due to the numerous delays it has faced.
Hopefully the myth of the $300 million C-17 will eventually die out here.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2432 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 27): It's gonna be a serious political task to have the USAF say anything inbetween the cheap but 50 yr old 20t C-130 and 80 t $300.000.000 C-17 is not needed.
The H model was in production 1964-1996, and all the J models were after that, so they aren't all necessarily 50 year old aircraft.
Quoting Columba (Reply 46): But they also get a C130Js, Airbus would definitely been an option if it had been available 5 years earlier.
And they may have been more interested in waiting for it if it had four PW Canada engines on it.
Quoting Columba (Reply 46): Also choose the C130J as they could not wait for the A400M.
And A400M may have been available earlier if they had gone with PW Canada.
SAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 525 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Quoting TGIF (Reply 49): Agree. I would love to see some C-17s though, perhaps if bought together with the other NBG countries for NBG operations. A400M could be possible, but with the cuts seen in the defense budget, who knows...
NBG (Nordic Battle Group) is as today a non existing group, however i can se Sweden order perhaps 5-6 A400 to replace those VERY OLD hercs. Sweden has also rented a couple of hundred hours of 2 C-17 from NATO instead of buying the planes it self (to few and expensive)
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2363 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 52): Quoting Columba (Reply 46):
But they also get a C130Js, Airbus would definitely been an option if it had been available 5 years earlier.
And they may have been more interested in waiting for it if it had four PW Canada engines on it.
Quoting Columba (Reply 46):
Also choose the C130J as they could not wait for the A400M.
And A400M may have been available earlier if they had gone with PW Canada.
- PW has never build anything close to 11.000 hp. Assuming it would have been easy & succesfull is based on nothing, it was a paper engine. What can PW do Rolls, Snecma and MTU can't?
If I'm right Snecma has a stake in powering the USAF KC135R fleet, MTU is providing key technology for Pratt and Rolls is powering the A380, 787, A350, JSF and C130-J.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2306 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 54): PW has never build anything close to 11.000 hp.
No, but they have built many 7500 shp turboprops.
Tell me how much experience did Europrop have? Do you think maybe the A400 would not be so late and over budget if they went with an established builder that has experience with large turbo shafts?
Oops, European pride and protectionism got in the way of that.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2302 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 55):
Tell me how much experience did Europrop have?
Europrop itself none but the companies that have founded Europrop (btw what a silly name, why must everything be named "Euro" these days Europrop, Eurofighter etc.....I liked Panavia much better) had lots of experience.
But I agree it would have been a smart move to get the Canadians on board since Canada was also in the market for a new military transporter.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2264 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 55): Do you think maybe the A400 would not be so late and over budget if they went with an established builder that has experience with large turbo shafts?
Maybe it would have been even later / a complete drama, who knows ?
Quoting Alien (Reply 55): Tell me how much experience did Europrop have?
Tons.
RR has a broad Turboshaft offering ranging from 300 to 7300 shp (AE 1107C-Liberty,
RTM322, T800, MTR390, Gem, Model 250 turboshaft, RR300, AE 2100, Model 250 turboprop and the good old T56. Powering aircraft like the P3, C27J and Osprey.
Snecma is good friends with GE and a key partner / supplier of hot section in GE programs like CFM56, GE90 and GENX.
MTU is an establish subcontractor to world OEMs, including Rolls, GE, Pratt and many others.
Maybe Pratt Canada could have designed and build a good 11.000 shp engine too, who knows.. maybe the risks were too high.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1048 posts, RR: 9 Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2273 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 55): Tell me how much experience did Europrop have? Do you think maybe the A400 would not be so late and over budget if they went with an established builder that has experience with large turbo shafts?
How much experience does RR have? How much experience does Snecma have? How much experience does MTU Aero Engines have? How much experience does ITP (EF 3DTVC) have?
I guess more then you think. There is no guarantee PW for example wouldn't have messed this up to. Something already hapened with the GTF disaster. With their incredible experience how did they dare not to deliver it? ( no offense to PW)
Its not the typical engine for a new liner in case you haven't noticed it.
Quoting Alien (Reply 55): Oops, European pride and protectionism got in the way of that.
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 887 posts, RR: 1 Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 61): I was thinking of another possible customer: Austria.
Didn't think of that one, but you're totally right they'd be a good candidate. They've already acquired the Typhoon, they could end up following the other A400M nations on this one as well.
Other candidates could be pretty much any country in Eastern Europe - there's plenty of old Antonovs and Ilyushins to replace!
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 62): Other candidates could be pretty much any country in Eastern Europe - there's plenty of old Antonovs and Ilyushins to replace!
But most of them have only An 26s and nothing bigger, I expect them to go for the C27J or the CASA 295.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5610 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4744 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11060 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, 
huh
From Austria, joined May 2005, 545 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 190 posts, 
From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1048 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
