Noray wrote:The art of denying has reached a high level here.
Who is denying what? We all know the A400M is more capable than the C-130J, it should be given it costs nearly three times as much to acquire and weighs twice as much.
Noray wrote:Meanwhile, those who operate the A400M and the C-130J side by side report that the A400M was able to "take three times as much as a C-130 into a tight, small strip without taking any military risk in its performance."
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/atlas- ... -the-load/
I doubt that it's cheaper to operate three C-130Js rather than one A400M.
Great. It is good to see it provided value for the RAF in that scenario.
The question is, why does it need to provide the same value for the USAF, which operates over 200 strategic transports that carry twice the load of an A400M nearly twice as far and 400 tactical transports below it that carry 2/3 the load almost as far? The USAF does not need it, it isn't denial or hated of Europe or anything so stupid, they already have enough transport capability. When they look to replace either airframe, the USAF will look for a significant capability increase that the A400M does not provide over their current fleet mix.