747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:29 am

From what I have been reading, the USAF has been looking at the A400M. Now my question is, will the USAF actually order A400Ms, and how would an A400M fleet effect the USAF C-17s and C-130Js fleets?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:56 am

currently? Negative one billion %.

The C17 is far cheaper lift, and the C130 is already fully developed for special missions.

EADS need to not only get the special missions of the A400M on line, but get the price down to less than 1/2 of the C17 for a basic cargo A400M
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:25 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):
The C17 is far cheaper lift


I am not sure about that. But especially in these times of huge budget cuts I do not expect any order for an A400M from the US soon. No doubt they could use the plane, but these missions can also be covered with the current fleets of C17's and C130's they already have.

So maybe the chances are not negative one billion %, but I agree with you and I too would call it highly unlikely that the USAF would order an A400M in the coming years.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:00 am

Cold day in hell.

"There is a potential future gap in tactical airlift capabilities for transporting medium- weight army equipment that cannot fit on C-130 aircraft," GAO auditors wrote in a November 2009 report on the airlift fleet.

"It's flying what won't fit into a C-130 into places where a C-17 can't land,"

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oised-for-us-market-spotlight.html

I heard the C-17 is just very cheap and the A400M incredible expensive so, that says enough.

I have no hard prove it is not underperforming, so it might as well be.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:00 pm

Has something changed since this thread that we need another? The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 (by Keesje Jan 30 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)?threadid=80807&searchid=118366&s=a400#ID118366

Or this? Airbus A400M Export Campaigns (by keesje Jun 22 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Last I heard, USAF personnel went to an airshow and toured the A400M. That's similar to the last time I was in Vegas checking out a Ferrari. I would like to have one and I'm "expressing interest", but my 4 year old auto will suffice and I've already paid for it.

[Edited 2010-09-11 05:05:58]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:13 pm

An order for say 35 or so A400s for the USAF might be a way to soothe over the awarding of the tanker contract to Boeing.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:25 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
An order for say 35 or so A400s for the USAF might be a way to soothe over the awarding of the tanker contract to Boeing.


If the USAF should order the A400M, it should be decided on the qualities of the airplane and the attractiveness of the total deal. It should not be ordered as a consolation price imho.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:28 pm

The only way this will happen is if the AF has an RFP with funding that specifies an aircraft that only the A400 or AN-70 can meet. That would exclude the C-130 or C-17 as too small and too big.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:07 pm

Quoting epa001 (Reply 6):
If the USAF should order the A400M, it should be decided on the qualities of the airplane and the attractiveness of the total deal. It should not be ordered as a consolation price imho.

You have got to be joking  
In military purchases of large magnitude - a/c being one of them - politics probably make up more that 75% of the decision, in my opinon, much much greater than civilian purchases whree the percentage is probably 40-50%, again my opinion.
If the US gets into another conflict and needs EU support, purchasing more EU products is a sure way to influence or put pressure on those making the decision.
Question, do you think the selection of the last POTUS helicopter was in any way affected by such a thought?

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
"There is a potential future gap in tactical airlift capabilities for transporting medium- weight army equipment that cannot fit on C-130 aircraft," GAO auditors wrote in a November 2009 report on the airlift fleet.

"It's flying what won't fit into a C-130 into places where a C-17 can't land,"

Such has always and will always be the case and when that happens they move the item by ground / rail or deposit it within operating range of a helicopter with a sling.
It's like aircraft engines, how many carriers of ETOPS twins have ordered cargo a/c for those times when diversions occur and engine replacements are required?
The military designed its cargo carriers to handle equipment they consider essential, they will finds ways to position "adhoc" items which is cheaper than purchasing a cargo platform, ever heard of a battle cancelled because they could not get a 155mm gun to the front?  
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
That's similar to the last time I was in Vegas checking out a Ferrari.


  

Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled. Might all be non sense of course, we really can't know yet, it isn't in service. For the European Air Forces it puts important parts of the Middle East and Africa under direct reach for higher loads.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SandroMag
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:36 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:41 pm

Embraer KC-390 has more chances to get an US order than A400M
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:58 pm

Quoting SandroMag (Reply 10):
Embraer KC-390 has more chances to get an US order than A400M

I agree, it is faster, carries a little more, has two engines, more mission capability, and is cheaper.

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled. Might all be non sense of course, we really can't know yet, it isn't in service. For the European Air Forces it puts important parts of the Middle East and Africa under direct reach for higher loads.

No Keesje, the USMC is happy with their new KC-130Js. They are looking at the AC-130J based on the tanker (less capable than the USAF AC-130H/U/P) they already have for their SpecOps.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:30 pm

gone are the days of 'we have to have some because they exist', and we'll figure out it's purpose later...
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:55 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled.

Doen't make a lot of sense in-light of the following:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...3/gates-reviewing-role-of-marines/
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:38 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
carries a little more

Make that "significantly less".

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
has two engines

And how would this be an advantage (for military customers, anyway)?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
more mission capability

How do you know that?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:23 pm

If the C-130 is to small for a vehicle, you can always call in a C-17, C5 or use road / sea transport. Easy as that!
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:30 am

I think the A400M has a chance in high number for the US.

But only IF two things are happening:


1. Boeing gets the tanker deal as sole provider.

2. Europe buys the Poseidon instead of the A319 as next ASW platform.


Politics at its best...
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:51 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 16):
I think the A400M has a chance in high number for the US.

Why? We have less than 220 C17 and the USAF claims it needs 0 more. The C17 hauls twice as much (or more) for not a whole lot more money per frame. Its even possibly cheaper per frame if you look at the costs to introduce the A400M type vs mere addon order of the C17. Which is how the USAF should look at it since the C17 doesn't have those extra costs when you buy a few more C17 frames, its been paid for decades ago. The A400M would need extensive training, parts inventories, and other costs beyond its actual frame cost.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:04 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
The A400M would need extensive training, parts inventories, and other costs beyond its actual frame cost.

Do you really think you know the price, Airbus is offering the A400M for?

I could imagine a VERY sweet deal to come into the market.


The C17 sometimes is an overkill, not to mention the C5...
The size of the C130 is not suitable for a lot of equipment today.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:14 am

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 7):
That would exclude the C-130 or C-17 as too small and too big.

I think something maybe going on behind the scenes, Boeing has been talking up an improved "soft field' C-17, and also a narrow fuselage C-17. Lockheed has also been talking up a fatter C-130.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
carries a little more

I doubt the C-390 will even out lift a C-130 when the first frames come of the production line, the runway performance I suspect will be nowhere near what the C-130 or A400M could do.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 16):
I think the A400M has a chance in high number for the US

I think if any agency were to obtain a A400M, it would be the USCG first. The A400 has higher enroute speed than the HC-130H/J, designed for low level operations, designed for refuelling helicopters, and also a much longer time on station or search radius compared to the HC-130H/J.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
The C17 hauls twice as much (or more) for not a whole lot more money per frame.

Most payloads the C-17 take are not "twice as much (or more)" of an A400M load. The life cycle costs of the A400M I suspect will be much lower than the C-17.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
Its even possibly cheaper per frame if you look at the costs to introduce the A400M type vs mere addon order of the C17.

If they were not to look at the life cycle and MILCON costs, and assume a very small fleet of A400Ms, such a statement could be valid.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:47 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Most payloads the C-17 take are not "twice as much (or more)" of an A400M load

Depends on what your doing. If you need to fly 5,500NM unrefueled... The C17 can do it with 20tons (english) of cargo and the A400M doesn't have the range to do it with 0lbs of payload. Thats if they meet the specs promised at the program launch

At the 30tonne (metric tons) payload thats near the A400M's maximum it flys 2,400nm. At 2,400nm range the C17 is listed as carrying a mere 76.66 tonne. So its still more than 2x the cargo at the far end of the wieght chart.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
If they were not to look at the life cycle and MILCON costs, and assume a very small fleet of A400Ms, such a statement could be valid.

Please ignore the fact that to the USAF the C17 already has these costs paid so additional frames do not incur these costs. You would be correct that one should account for both if the user has neither in service, but when one has a type already in service, accounting for costs already paid is foolish when looking at all options going forward. If you own a taxi cab company and already have 1000 crownvics do you buy 10 taxis of a new type just because they might be 10% cheaper to run... ignoring the fact that you have to pay huge money right now to train your drivers, mechanics, parts people, get the custom taxi conversion designed, said conversion done, etc. No fleet operator regardless of what kind of fleet they have is going to add in past costs that no longer apply. They will however apply any future costs to any bids.

OK well the idiots in military procurment often are bad at properly accounting for the true cost of a system and will ignore much of the costs of aquiring a new type till it shows up and suddenly money has to be paid so they can actualy use the shiny new hardware.

Regardless, I fail to see how the lifetime costs can be assumed to automaticly be lower for the A400M since they want to integrate many systems that are useless for cargo hauling, yet increase the operating costs of the airplane. I also fail to see how its certain given the C17 has proven to be a solid airplane in use. The A400 has only proven its going to be way overwieght with questions lingering about the engines being worth anything at all.


On a side note
Be real interesting if Pratt can deliver a cost effective GTF for Boeing to use for thier idea of a shorter body tactical C17. Insane range or loiter time depening on needs, and would share enough parts to keep the cost within the window needed to kill the A400M in any possible RFP. I personaly think a longer C17 with updated engines would be the way to go to generate new USAF orders but I don't see Pratt getting anywhere near the thrust rating required for one in a GTF, as they already have way to many projects needing thier attention.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:19 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Be real interesting if Pratt can deliver a cost effective GTF for Boeing to use for thier idea of a shorter body tactical C17

No, not for the shorter body version, but for the normal version!!!


The C17 has a very old engines, many people don´t know, but it is the B757-engine PW2000, which is 1980s technology.


A GTF would offer much lower fuelburn for the current C17!

[Edited 2010-09-12 03:20:03]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:43 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Depends on what your doing.

True, just like the C-5 has a paper payload capacity twice that of the C-17, rarely will it ever carry such loads. From what I understand C-17s are being limited to around 40 tonnes where possible to extend the life of the airframes.

Sure some C-17s are needed, and the mobility plan says that number is 180. I remember reading in a CRS report to congress saying that the average payload taken by C-17s in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom was under 20 tonnes.

You can task a C-17 to take half a C-130 load, sure it will get the job done if the airport is big enough and the runway is dry, not trying to do paratroops in formation etc, but the airframe is not an infinite resource, and every tasking reduces its life, and means replacement will be needed sooner.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
I fail to see how the lifetime costs can be assumed to automatically be lower for the A400M since they want to integrate many systems that are useless for cargo hauling

I take it you are referring to air to air refuelling capability. It is not that difficult to have an optimum system designed in on a clean sheet design, I am sure that is the assessment the KC-390 team also made.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The A400 has only proven its going to be way overwieght with questions lingering about the engines being worth anything at all.

You provided no proof of that at all with that statement. The A400M flight testing, which is ahead of schedule, has determined that the engines are performing better than specification. The chief test pilot on the A400M gave some interviews on the aircraft at ILA and Farnborough (available on the net) revealing that the airframe/engine combination is performing very well.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
On a side note

Sounds like advocating billions in R&D to modify an existing airframe, that is not optimised for those changes.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:34 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Some people think the marines might like it for special operations, feeding their helicopters and fast jets and most of all putting bigger vehicles (light tanks, medium helicopter) close to the front line. It shortens flight times because of its M .7 capability and crosses the Atlantic with 20t unrefuelled
Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
I think if any agency were to obtain a A400M, it would be the USCG first. The A400 has higher enroute speed than the HC-130H/J, designed for low level operations, designed for refuelling helicopters, and also a much longer time on station or search radius compared to the HC-130H/J.

Two examples of what I call "marketing" a product, to customers whose mode of operation are not presently suited to the product so would have to be severly adjusted.

Marines are amphibious forces, regardless of what the Pentagon and DOD have done in the last 5 to 10 years turning them into a relief Army manpower and Navy supplemental pilots, the bulk of their equipment has been built up over much more decades. Ships to move them across the pond, which also bring a lot more equipment at a cheaper cost than a fleet of A400M, numerous helicopters with slings to position equipment and tankers to fuel their helicopters and a/c.
Since the A400M does much more than their current C-130's adjustments must be made to cater for the increased capabilities of the a/c, reminds me of another purchase now being considered by another service.

The US Coast Guard one of their functions is patrol, another is search and rescue, using A400Ms for longer patrols is fine, question is how many do they need?
On the search and rescue front they took a hit when they retired their long range helicopters and replaced them with Blackhawks and the shorter range H-65 Dolphin, it meant that their surface fleet needed adjustments to either get out there quicker or stay out there longer.
Now they have problems replacing the high endurance cutters, certainely a longer range patrol a/c will let them go out even further, but if assistance is required, it must be of the kind where dropping supplies is sufficient.
A question I would ask of Coast Guard procedures, do their C-130's carry "swimmers" and do they deploy them when surface ships are hours away?
I'll see what google turns up.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 pm

The USCG currently has some 33 HC-130H/Js they use for various missions. But they do not have the air refueling or CSAR missions the USAF HC-130N/P/Js have.

The USCG HC-130H/Js do not have the capability to deploy USCG Swimmers. But they will enter a holding pattern over a rescue site until USCG hilos, or cutters can get to the area.

The Coast Guard Swimmers can only deploy from hilos and cutters, they are not parachute qualified.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:20 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The Coast Guard Swimmers can only deploy from hilos and cutters, they are not parachute qualified

Just completed reading a few articles on the history and evolution of the capabilty.
My question remains, the greater range of the A400M will equate to more time on station, and since the effective range of the surface / helicopter assets are now more limited, how much are you willing to spend on a capability that is limited at best. In the range spectrum of the helicopters for example, the C-130 has plenty enough staying power on station, if speed to the patrol zone is required, they have LearJets for that which neither the C-130 or A400M can compete with.

Rather than purchasing EH-101's for POTUS the Navy should have looked at finally replacing the Sikorsky's for long range Coast Guard rescue a/c.
Just a thought  
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:31 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Lockheed has also been talking up a fatter C-130.

I am not sure what you are implying? In the past Lockheed proposed a "twin engine" C-130, a amphibious C-130, ASW C-130's, AWAC, C-130's and the list could go on and on.
 
wingman
Posts: 2902
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:43 pm

I would add a third condition to 328's first two:

3. When France and Germany buy 50 C-17s

Buy some stuff from us and we'll reciprocate. Until then let's simply buy our own. It's amazing we have to rehash this concept over and over again but let's go ahead and ask the question yet again. What purpose does it serve for the US to buy equipment from France and Germany at such staggering costs when these two countries do not return the favor? At this point I would be heartened at having US equipment even included in a major weapons RFP in either of these markets. But alas, this hasn't happened in some 20-30 years if not longer. I guess Spain bought F18s but I'm pretty sure that was in the early 80's. I guess we could buy 2-3 A400s to compensate.
 
columba
Posts: 5055
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:43 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 27):
3. When France and Germany buy 50 C-17s

That would be a bit too much for France and Germany but I agree both countries did not buy any US made planes in the past but this has changed and will change:

Germany is the first foreign customer of the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk and is currently evaluating the H-92, HH-47 as a CSAR and Navy/SAR/Fregatte helicopter. I would also favor some C-17 but definitely not in that number. 5 - 10 each would be decent number for Germany and France.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:02 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
True, just like the C-5 has a paper payload capacity twice that of the C-17, rarely will it ever carry such loads

If you are talking about weight; thats true; but as far as cargo capacity; thats totally false. The majority of missions over the pond have a full load of cargo at some point; it might not be anywhere near the maximum weight capacity; but I assure you its a full load. That goes for both the C-5 and C-17.

I said it before in another thread, I doubt the USAF will buy A-400Ms...If the C-130 can't do it, the C-17 can. If neither "can" do it; they'll make it work another way. With all the budget cuts going on; there isn't any room in it to just say...Hey! Airbus has a plane they want to sell for almost the same price of a C-17! Lets buy 200 of them! Not going to happen.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:29 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 25):
In the range spectrum of the helicopters for example, the C-130 has plenty enough staying power on station, if speed to the patrol zone is required, they have LearJets for that which neither the C-130 or A400M can compete with.

The time available on station for the A400M is a fair bit more, it should had 1000-2000 nm more range, or another way to look at it, that much additional fuel to offload to a helicopter. I was not aware they have learjets, I knew they had some modified Falcon 20 aircraft (HU-25), but they are medium range aircraft, and only deployed at a few locations. I am not sure if the HU-25 is actually capable of dropping a raft either.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 26):

I am not sure what you are implying? In the past Lockheed proposed a "twin engine" C-130, a amphibious C-130, ASW C-130's, AWAC, C-130's and the list could go on and on.

LM are looking at a fat C-130 to accommodate the new FCS vehicles, this is the previous thread on the topic C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army (by RedFlyer Sep 8 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 29):

If you are talking about weight; thats true; but as far as cargo capacity; thats totally false.

I was talking about mass, hence the number of references I made to maximum and average weights. People often use the "C-17 lifts twice as much payload as the A400M" argument to justify the C-17 being superior dismissing the reality that a lot of loads are volume limited. As you no doubt are aware the C-17 flight manual limits prevent the maximum payload mass into an unpaved strips.

If you look at say a CH-47 payload, they can only fit one in a A400M or C-17, and zero in a C-130, equipment like that fill up cargo bays without exceeding the maximum payload mass.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:24 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 26):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Lockheed has also been talking up a fatter C-130.

I am not sure what you are implying? In the past Lockheed proposed a "twin engine" C-130, a amphibious C-130, ASW C-130's, AWAC, C-130's and the list could go on and on.

Zeke is right, I believe the LM program is internaly called the C-130X.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
I was not aware they have learjets, I knew they had some modified Falcon 20 aircraft (HU-25), but they are medium range aircraft, and only deployed at a few locations. I am not sure if the HU-25 is actually capable of dropping a raft either

You are right, the USCG does not fly any version of the Lear Jet, it is the HU-25s I think he was thinking of. The HU-25 is mostrly used for law enfoircement and drug interdiction missions. It is hardly ever used as a SAR aircraft, but it can be used to help find those needing rescue.

The USCG has some 33 C-130H/Js right now, they don't have the budget for more of them, and do not need to retire any soon. So, even though an A-400 would fit in the USCG very well, I just don't see when or where they would order them. The USCG is now getting new HC-144s, which they will use as a sort of cheaper to fly HC-130.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:33 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
I was not aware they have learjets, I knew they had some modified Falcon 20 aircraft (HU-25), but they are medium range aircraft, and only deployed at a few locations. I am not sure if the HU-25 is actually capable of dropping a raft either.

My mistake, Falcons.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
The time available on station for the A400M is a fair bit more, it should had 1000-2000 nm more range, or another way to look at it, that much additional fuel to offload to a helicopter.

No dispute on the additional time on station, the fuel offload I disregarded as a capability they would not need, if selected, they now have to out-fit current and future a/c for aerial refeulling and pilot training, like I said, adjustments for a product, doable but is it worth it?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:02 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 29):
Airbus has a plane they want to sell for almost the same price of a C-17!

  It seems to become a little more truth the more this a.net myth is repeated. Many times have I googled up the prices the Dod, Australians, RAF, Arabs and Canadians payed for their C-17s. And for taking part in spare / training programs.

The price negotiated for the A400M, plus the billions in cost overruns so far, still don't come close to the prices paid for C-17s. Never let reality get in the way of a useful one liner it seems.

Obviously Boeing and Lockheed Martin see a market inbetween the C-17A and C130J. Otherwise they would not propose new designs in this category.

C-17FE
http://www.abload.de/img/00000129f5b4d9bf444acakv5a.jpg

C-130XL
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/c130XL.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:33 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 33):
It seems to become a little more truth the more this a.net myth is repeated. Many times have I googled up the prices the Dod, Australians, RAF, Arabs and Canadians payed for their C-17s. And for taking part in spare / training programs.

The price negotiated for the A400M, plus the billions in cost overruns so far, still don't come close to the prices paid for C-17s. Never let reality get in the way of a useful one liner it seems.

Not taking your own advice? Time and time again, many here have proven the flyaway cost of the C-17 and A-400 are at, or near the same. You just deny it all the time.

Quoting keesje (Reply 33):
Obviously Boeing and Lockheed Martin see a market inbetween the C-17A and C130J. Otherwise they would not propose new designs in this category.

Perhaps you are right there, both B and Lm are looking at that sized airplane, but the US Government has not bitten on it. So, at least in the US, there is not a market. Perhaps B and LM are looking at overseas sales, like EADS is?
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:18 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
LM are looking at a fat C-130 to accommodate the new FCS vehicles, this is the previous thread on the topic C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army (by RedFlyer Sep 8 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


The point was that Lockheed is always looking at way to improve the capability of their airframes and the it has nothing to do with the A-400M!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:53 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Perhaps you are right there, both B and Lm are looking at that sized airplane, but the US Government has not bitten on it. So, at least in the US, there is not a market. Perhaps B and LM are looking at overseas sales, like EADS is?

Personally; I think B and LM are looking at that sized aircraft to steal the A400M orders away and kill the competition...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:42 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Time and time again, many here have proven the flyaway cost of the C-17 and A-400 are at, or near the same.

No they have not, I have previously shown on other threads that price paid by Malaysia and South Africa included a significant level of spares, if you look at the actual airframe cost, it is not that far off what the US Navy paid for the two basic C-130Js it bought for the USCG (170 million for 2), and those aircraft still need to get modified for USCG service.

C-17s airframes remain more expensive by some margin compared to the base C-130 or A400M airframe.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
So, at least in the US, there is not a market.

No, the market they are looking at is the US, with the new FCS vehicles due around 2015, they will not be transportable in the current C-130, and the C-17 is an overkill as it was designed around the M1. What people want is something the size of a C-141.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 35):
The point was that Lockheed is always looking at way to improve the capability of their airframes and the it has nothing to do with the A-400M!

If you look at the C-130J specs that LM give customers these days, they compare their aircraft to the A400M when it suits. LM has not in the past been that proactive in upgrading the C-130, and in fact the C-130J was an absolute disaster, at one stage the US DoD was looking at cancelling it all together.

The fat C-130 is reacting to the FCS vehicle, I do not expect them to proactively develop the model independently at all, I think they will only develop it if the US goverment funds it.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:22 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
LM has not in the past been that proactive in upgrading the C-130, and in fact the C-130J was an absolute disaster, at one stage the US DoD was looking at cancelling it all together.


How could the DoD cancel the C-130J "all together"?

The C-130J was developed at "company expense" ie, Lockheed's money. The RAF was the launch customer and bought them on a commercial contract, not foreign military sales contract. So the DoD was not involved.

Lockheed informed the DoD that after the last contracted C-130H was built Lockheed would only build C-130J's. If the DoD did not want the J's, they would would have to go elsewhere for their medium lift airframes.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:05 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Not taking your own advice? Time and time again, many here have proven the flyaway cost of the C-17 and A-400 are at, or near the same. You just deny it all the time.

Sure. Just another recent price indication, India (waiting to be ignored/denied).

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...-airlifter/articleshow/6155076.cms

Quoting 474218 (Reply 35):
The point was that Lockheed is always looking at way to improve the capability of their airframes and the it has nothing to do with the A-400M!
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 36):
Personally; I think B and LM are looking at that sized aircraft to steal the A400M orders away and kill the competition...

I think both are looking for a right sized aircraft to fulfil a upcoming required. They obviously feel their current products are not right sized.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:16 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 38):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
LM has not in the past been that proactive in upgrading the C-130, and in fact the C-130J was an absolute disaster, at one stage the US DoD was looking at cancelling it all together.


How could the DoD cancel the C-130J "all together"?

The C-130J was developed at "company expense" ie, Lockheed's money. The RAF was the launch customer and bought them on a commercial contract, not foreign military sales contract. So the DoD was not involved.

Zeke, is the A-400 program an absolute disaster?
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:19 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 28):
That would be a bit too much for France and Germany but I agree both countries did not buy any US made planes in the past but this has changed and will change

No US made planes?


What about:


- S61
- CH53
- Bell UH 1
- P3 Orion
- Boeing 707s
- F104s
- F4s

etc...


 
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:03 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
is the A-400 program an absolute disaster?

For some a year before entry into service would be early to conclude a program is a disaster, for others not.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:35 am

OK everybody has their story on C-17 purchase price versus the A400M.. there seem to be several A400M prices.. one for the participant customers (British, Germany etc which have escalated) and one for initial foreign sales..South Africa etc., and what ever the current offering is.


The same is true of the C-17... there is the USAF cost per unit, there are the Canadian, Indian, Qatar cost prices (possibly all different)... However with all the accusations of faulty numbers, I can not find any specifics to support either side..

Would someone please provide the numbers in each category so we are talking apples and apples.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:28 am

2008: Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-c17.htm http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/80807/#13


2008 Once again, the U.S. Air Force has put additional C-17s atop its list of things it wants but can't afford, placing 15 aircraft worth about $3.9 billion on its fiscal 2009 Unfunded Requirements List.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...7s%20Lead%20USAF%20Unfunded%20List

2008 GOA USAF unit price $276 (page 24)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

Austrlia $1.49 billion for 4 C-17s. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/. + support http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/topstories/5638.html

It would not expect todays prices to be lower the $300M. Which is not un logical. Boeing is a commercial company with strong political backing and no competitition on the C17. What should we expect?

The A4000 prices and cost rises have also been listed. 110 M fixed unit price + 5 Billion spread across 180 a/c?

The cost overrun will not be paid directly by export customers (like Malaysia). However EADS too would look for the maximum price they can get. And they too have little competition atm.

[Edited 2010-09-14 02:30:15]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:35 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
The A4000 prices and cost rises have also been listed. 110 M fixed unit price + 5 Billion spread across 180 a/c?

How much of an overrun? 5 billion euros per one source; 11 billion per another.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...including-a400m-to-save-costs.html

Quote:
France, Britain, Germany and four other states agreed on a sweetened contract in March for the A400M, pledging to pay 25 billion euros ($32 billion) instead of 20 billion euros. Since then, both Britain and Germany have announced military spending reviews. Most European governments are grappling with deficit crises and reducing spending in areas that include defense. Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper reported earlier this week sharing aircraft carriers was on the agenda for the talks.
“I think it is unrealistic to share an aircraft carrier, but in other areas like tactical lift we can see what we can do,” Fox said. “This is about mutual interests. Our two natural partners are the U.S. and France. I can’t deny that there is an element of urgency added by budget concerns.”
Reduced Order
Airbus negotiated for a year to get the seven ordering states to commit additional funding for the A400M. The original accord called for delivery of 180 units at a fixed price. Airbus parent company European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. agreed in March that the nations could cut the figure by 10 to 170, deciding among themselves who would reduce their orders.
Even so, Airbus may have to wait months before governments reach a final agreement on increasing the price by 25 percent, a French government official said yesterday.

Here's the Economist's take:
http://www.economist.com/node/16886851?story_id=16886851&fsrc=rss

Quote:
Jointly developing weapons carries considerable costs: decisions are arduous and work has to be shared out. Reconciling the needs of each can result in building countless variants, or in piling multiple requirements on a single aircraft. This happened to the A400M, which suffered a cost overrun of more than €11 billion. Germany wanted it to skim over treetops, Britain needed it to lift (now-scrapped) new armoured vehicles. Both Britain and France said it had to operate from rough airfields. One Airbus insider calls the A400M an eierlegende Wollmilchsau, or “egg-producing wool-milk-sow”.
Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
The cost overrun will not be paid directly by export customers (like Malaysia). However EADS too would look for the maximum price they can get. And they too have little competition atm.

I agree that the export customers will not be expected to pay for the over runs. However, there will be competition. See the thread on the KC-390 and this article.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/651/
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:25 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
The A4000 prices and cost rises have also been listed. 110 M fixed unit price + 5 Billion spread across 180 a/c?

The cost overrun will not be paid directly by export customers (like Malaysia). However EADS too would look for the maximum price they can get.



First I erred in my original question... I intended to look at purchase price.. not manufacturer cost...

OK the C-17 purchase price appears to be well documented..

the A400M seems to be a little shaky as for some there is the inclusion of some or all of the overrun, and if early non partners sales were 110 M (Euros or dollars) that's clear.. however if EADS were to sell a new one today.. I question if that price would hold.

Related to the implication that the prices are high for both because of lack of competition... that is had to determine. a customer buying just one of either does pay through the nose because of all the uniqueness and not having multiple hulls to spread costs over (including non-supplier costs).. so to say that their cost provides mass profit over a customer who buys 5-100 would be incorrect. The other thing that drives military cost up is non essential specifications and inspections.. that can jump the cost considerably... It is one reason one manufacturer has convinced the buyer that when buying a commercial product for military use, the military should accept commercial practises up to the point where military unique systems re installed. now if we could envision future C-17s and A400M built to commercial practices (specs) instead of military specs, we would undoubtedly see sale prices drop and service life robustness increase.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:41 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
It would not expect todays prices to be lower the $300M. Which is not un logical. Boeing is a commercial company with strong political backing and no competitition on the C17. What should we expect?

The A4000 prices and cost rises have also been listed. 110 M fixed unit price + 5 Billion spread across 180 a/c?
Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
2008 GOA USAF unit price $276 (page 24)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R...3.pdf
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 45):
How much of an overrun? 5 billion euros per one source; 11 billion per another.
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 45):
Here's the Economist's take:
http://www.economist.com/node/168868...c=rss

The costs of 170 A-400s, at 25B Euros, averages 147.05M Euros.

The costs of 170 A-400s, at 32B Euros, averages 188.23M Euros

The USAF costs for a C-17 is $202.3M USD (1998 dollars).

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86

However, the actual costs of the C-17 has come down. The DOD released a contract to Boeing on 22 June 2010 for 8 more C-17s at atotal contract cost of $1,528,454,053 which is an average cost of $191.057M USD (2010 dollars). This is less than the 188.23M Euros ($235.29M USD) or slightly higher than the 147.04M Euros ($183.81M USD). The current USD/Euro exchange rate is $1.25USD = 1 Euro.

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4307
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:45 pm

[quote=KC135TopBoom,reply=47]
Funny how when we have actual numbers a lot of preconceptions vanish..... thanks. and I still believe EADS either will boost their prices to recover costs, ask for more money from it's "partners" or eat a loss for several years to come...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M?

Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:32 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 48):
kanban

You are right, EADS will be asking for more money per airplane. They will not eat any losses.

But, you may find some here who will dispute the actual facts and figuers. They will post something from 4-5 years ago, or even go back into the C-17 program when MDD had it.

The GAO reports from the 1990s on the C-17 are very popular for some of our EU friends.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos