keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:03 pm

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]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:26 pm

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!
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:34 pm



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!
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:47 pm

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]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm

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
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:03 pm



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.
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:37 pm

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:42 pm



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.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:13 pm

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
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:34 pm

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...
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:58 am

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
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:20 am



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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9754
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:23 am



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
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:02 am

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:43 am

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:37 am

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:52 am



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.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:11 pm



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.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:00 pm



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
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:11 am



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?
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:38 am



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
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:11 am



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
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 am



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.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:35 am

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:44 am



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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:28 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
They will get it from the same place they would purchase the A400M, if so inclined.

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 money again, but no C-17 line.

I do expect that the American OEM's won't leave the market to EADS and come up with a new plane in this time BTW...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:45 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
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.

It was "postponed" until 2017, at the earliest. Is Airbus looking at still having A-380 problems then?

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 25):
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 money again, but no C-17 line.

This is really not much of a problem. The US Government owns the tooling to make the C-17s and can restart the line anytime. Remember the C-5A production line was restarted to build C-5Bs some 14 years after the last C-5A rolled off the line.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:36 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
This is really not much of a problem. The US Government owns the tooling to make the C-17s and can restart the line anytime. Remember the C-5A production line was restarted to build C-5Bs some 14 years after the last C-5A rolled off the line.

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 off-the-shelve more or less that will do the job seams not so unlikely at that point.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:40 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
It was "postponed" until 2017, at the earliest. Is Airbus looking at still having A-380 problems then?

Little update, the A380 is ok. Better aim your arrows to the west now..

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 27):
Buying something off-the-shelve more or less that will do the job seams not so unlikely at that point.

 checkmark  I think the ideas above will costs at least $20bill and take 15 years.

probably not suitable when you need raw capasity to replace a geriatic fleet.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mrefueled1024.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:37 pm

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-shelf, and cheaper. Then they'll customize the requirement to incrementally make that plane somehow better.

You guys act like this will be a surprise.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:30 am



Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 29):
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-shelf, and cheaper. Then they'll customize the requirement to incrementally make that plane somehow better.

You guys act like this will be a surprise.

somehow I think the American public will have a lot more problems with a Ukrainian/Russian plane than with a perceived "French" plane...
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:36 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 30):
perceived "French" plane...

If t


I the A330 is perceived french, the A400M would be spanish (assembled near Sevilla). Both non-sense of course..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:38 pm



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.

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

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 Water Upgrade Program.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:43 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
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.

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

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 Water Upgrade Program.

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 scrambles to get them outfitted with the mission package they need to serve as a maritime patrol aircraft.

Deepwater chose the CASA 295 aircraft, primarily as a replacement for the ill-fated HU-25.

The Coast Guard knows it needs more C-130's, but their leadership is too cowardly to take a strong stance and lobby for the aircraft they really need.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:50 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 30):
somehow I think the American public will have a lot more problems with a Ukrainian/Russian plane than with a perceived "French" plane...

No, I sincerely doubt that. Throwing Boeing/Pratt on the project will also alleviate the marketing challenges for the lobbyists.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:02 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
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.

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

I believe the USCG is buying HC-130Js now, replacing their older worn out HC-130H.

For the USCG the A400M seems to big & expense anyway..

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 34):
somehow I think the American public will have a lot more problems with a Ukrainian/Russian plane than with a perceived "French" plane...

No, I sincerely doubt that.

You might be right. The Russian / Ukrainians are as reliable / thrustworthy to Americans as mean wolves, but the general public doesn´t know so might give them the benefit of the doubt.. On the other hand the french are training from US navy carriers and close cooperating in a long string of other areas (e.g. Afghanistan). But again nobody knows / wants to know and sentiments could play a role..

Media plays a role here, they tend to show what people want to see and not what they don´t want to see.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:27 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 34):
No, I sincerely doubt that. Throwing Boeing/Pratt on the project will also alleviate the marketing challenges for the lobbyists.

is Northrop making a difference for the KC-30? Is Lockheed for the UH-72?
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:32 pm

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 at a similar development-stage/price-point, it works pretty well. There are two prime contractors that can carry off the necessary marketing strategy to the target "customers." (Customers in the USA=legislators who the DoD has to sell on
requirements/decisions).

(I would separate production issues post-selection for the Lakota/US-101 from their ability to win the contracts in the first place, which is, really, at issue in evaluating USAF purchases of the A-400M. The AC issue for the UH-145 is almost as comical as the tanker saga, from a procurement perspective. Off-the-Shelf should mean what it says.)

LM/Boeing. I might be wrong in that NG might be able to do it, but let's face it, the tanker decision is a pretty convoluted story to analogize to any other procurement situation past present or future.
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:05 pm



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.

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 there is no C-17 money today, and by the time they realize that they should've gotten more, the line will be dead and re-starting it will cost a fortune.

In 10 years, Airbus will be offering a readily-available, in production aircraft that while not as capable for strategic transport as the C-17, could still fulfill a broad range of missions. Maybe Embraer will be around offering their C-390 as well. Will the DoD, with Boeing and LM, have come up with something new by then? They'll have to.

Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 29):
A Boeing team-up with Antonov and Pratt to product/upgrade the AN-70 is still the wild card, imho

Now that would be sweet...  Smile and highly unlikely  Sad
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:30 am

Interesting article on this exact topic.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ould%20Dominate%20Strategic%20Lift

It will be hard for the USAF to avoid the A400M & they'll probably order it, kicking & screaming..

If you have bandwidth : a high resollution pic of the A400m cockpit..
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mcockpit3500.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:24 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 27):
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 off-the-shelve more or less that will do the job seams not so unlikely at that point.

So, you are saying the USAF needs to buy some B-747-8Fs?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
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. T



Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
Little update, the A380 is ok.

You mean they now have the production for the A-380s from EASA/FAA?

Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 29):
A Boeing team-up with Antonov and Pratt to product/upgrade the AN-70 is still the wild card,



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 30):
somehow I think the American public will have a lot more problems with a Ukrainian/Russian plane than with a perceived "French" plane...

At least we know where the Russians stand. Can't say that about the French.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
The HC-130J's were purchased by Congress for the Coast Guard. They aren't yet "missionized,"

The USCG now has the #3 HC-130J missionized aircraft being accepted now.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
It will be hard for the USAF to avoid the A400M & they'll probably order it, kicking & screaming..

The USAF cannot get any delivery slots until 2013 (or later), how is that going to help us? It will also be hard for Congress to explain to the voters why they ordered the USAF to buy airplanes built in the EU, when US Aerospace workers will be looking for additional airplane orders.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:00 pm



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.. 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?

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 seems you like to bring it up every chance you get yet are rather silent about the insider trading over at EADS.

As for the C-130J long maturation process may I point out that the A400M has yet to fly. Who knows what sort of issues it will have. You might end up having a longer than expected test program. IMO the USAF would best be served sticking with the C-130J, C-17 and upgraded C-5 combo. The current budget situtation I doubt the USAF would be willing to divert funds away from these three programs on an aircraft they have never operated.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:35 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
So, you are saying the USAF needs to buy some B-747-8Fs?

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.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
At least we know where the Russians stand. Can't say that about the French.

so where do they stand? You know the A400M isn;t French (Germany buys the most frames) Russia has been playing more power politics using oil and gas than ever before..
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:39 am



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
At least we know where the Russians stand. Can't say that about the French.

so where do they stand?

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.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
So, you are saying the USAF needs to buy some B-747-8Fs?

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.

That I agree with, along with buying about 78 B-747-8Fs to replace all the original C-5As. The C-5Bs should be upgraded to the C-5M configuration. The C-17A/ERs only replace the lost C-141B capability.
 
FighterPilot
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:27 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:35 pm



Quoting CF188A (Reply 19):
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.

 rotfl 

Cal  airplane 
*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
The USAF cannot get any delivery slots until 2013 (or later), how is that going to help us? It will also be hard for Congress to explain to the voters why they ordered the USAF to buy airplanes built in the EU, when US Aerospace workers will be looking for additional airplane orders.

True, but explaining becomes easy when you have no choice. Slots from 2011 I think..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
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.

I think the hate is the other way around. Because they joined in Afghanistan but said Iraq was illegal & stupid. Living with the fact they were right (+ they have a big mouth just like the US) seems unbearable for some.

Having some 747s wouldn't be bad for doing long haul to regional logistic centers where the C-17 / C130s can take over.. Upgrading used ones might even be smarter / cheaper.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:36 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
Little update, the A380 is ok.

You mean they now have the production for the A-380s from EASA/FAA?

Opps, me bad, That should say "production certificate" for the A-380......

Quoting Keesje (Reply 45):
Living with the fact they were right

Yeah, I guess they were right. We will pull out of Iraq, now. The Russians and French have all the answers, so I guess they can just go and talk the terrorist into being civilized people. The US way of just killing them is clearly not working.,  Yeah sure  Angry
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:23 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
The French hate us, too, but try to hide it by smiling at us.

the French don't hate you. How many French people do you know?

Freedom Fries anyone? come on..
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:48 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 47):
the French don't hate you. How many French people do you know?

The truth is, French and Americans have always had a sort of love-hatred relationship going on! Big grin
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008

Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:49 am

It appears someone else recently thought a Boeing Antonov link might not be totally, completely, absolutely insane.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-predict-a400m-vs-an70-for-us.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests