Is airbus trying to offer 2 A400m's for the cost of one C17?  The A400m was intended by airbus to replace europe's C130 and C160 fleet, and though the a400m has a much heavier load than the hercules, they arent even in the same class as the C17.  Is the A400m's increased size and cost allowing them to compete with other smaller transports eligible to replace the older C130s, are they trying to fill 2 aircraft roles with the same aircraft (heavy and medium size transport), or are they just throwing roadblocks at anything that comes from accross the atlantic?

A A400 has half payload of C17  and half the price, and can transport everything but MBT .But nobody including USA transport MBT by air.

Moreover 2 A400 transport more than a single C17 if you consider medium or low density payloads like men, trucks or helicopter since cargo floor length  of A400 is  17,7 m instead of 20.78 for C17 .

So 2 A400 would have 35,4 m of cargo floor length   instead of 20.78 for C17  so a 70% better performance for the same price for transporting light forces.

And of course interest of our industry and Airbus push for A400.

 

 

sorry about hijacking this thread, but I was thinking that the US should look at ordering a limited amount of A400m's to supplement the C130j buys, specifically for striker brigade transport, as i have read that the C130's are a little too small to carry the strykers in the "ready to roll off the ramp and fight" requirement of the stryker program.  I was thinking about replacing the 520 or so C-130s with a mix of maybe 180-200 A400m's and 300 or so C130j's.

"nobody including USA transport MBT by air."

I can see the A400M being a serious competitor for the C-130J. But the C-17? The C-17 has twice the weight capacity, a thousand miles extra range, and a crap load of additional bells and whistles. Granted it can carry more  troops, but if Britain, France, or Germany needs to move alot of troops and light cargo then they can use thier nations airliners, (British Airways, AirFrance, Lufthansa) to greater effect.  The only missions left is intratheatre cargo hauling, and specialized cargo hauling, (the kind of stuff that the C-130 is typically used for if the range isn't great enough to recquire a C-17) dropping paratroops (For which this plane would be an excellent aircraft, except for the fact that the Europeans don't have that many para units left.) and medevac. (Sounds like it'd be great for Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else where the locals at the end of the runway are trigger happy.) 

The plane is a competitor and rival to the C-130J. Which of the two is better is a personal prospective question, but IMHO it is not comparable to the C-17. Thats like comparing apples to oranges that are shaped like apples.

I was quite supprised to find out that the A400 would be powered by 4 turbo props.

I thought the improvements in turbofan jet technonlogy would make future air lift planes jet powered. None the less, the besides the AN-124, there is still the AN-22 cock, I don't know if you guys remember that huge monster.

No I find tha the A400Ms and C-17s are 2 differenct aircraft, they cannot replace each other, but can complement each other.

I think that the A400 will find a niche in the market between the C-130j and C-17 but will not replace a sizable amount of either aircraft.  Ive heard that most of the time NATO C-130s dont even fly with full capacity, so there is no need to replace more than 30-40% of a C-130 fleet with A400s for large vehicle transport, and the reduced range and lack of ability to carry MBT's and other very heavy loads shouldnt eat up much more than a few percent of C-17 sales either.

Seems that all of these strategic lift aircraft are large, be they russian/ukrainian or American.

The ruskie planes are always out for civilian contracts and lease, but the American C5 sees military duties exclusively.

Now with this Airbus 380 delayed, what would it take to convert any of these C5 size or Antanov behemoths into a massive civil aviation jetliner? Is it possible? Or the airlift aerodynamics do not bode well for speed and economical high speed cruising?

 

The Antonov 124/225's, even reengined are probably not efficient enough for passenger transport for savings are the design driver in passenger craft.  I note that MD and Boeing tried hard, and Boeing is still trying, to get civlian freight companies to buy the C-17 to help save the production line. Unfortunately, in spite of the considerably easier loading and unloading,  the C-17 is probably too expensive for these companies to purchase for hauling.  I've always thought the USAF should however have helped companies finance C-17's in return for their availability during wartime. I believe this has been done with some airline companies for craft like 747's and others, but I'm suggesting they apply this financing assistance just to C-17's to assure a very large supply. It might also be a way to keep the C-17 line running.

 

But back to the A-400M (so as not to change the thread too much) , at $132 million vs about what $70-$80 million for the C-130J, it seems to make more sense to have the lower capacity C-130J and the high capacity/faster C-17 as a mix.  So as others are saying, I just don't see the need for the mid-capacity A-400M. On the other hand, there have been a lot of complaints and problems with the C-130J, but in the longterm the bugs will no doubt be worked ot of the C-130J so I don't believe the A-400M works for the US.  In Europe, where they need extended capacity and they don't want to buy American, I think its a great way to go but its a compromise in size. Hopefully, it won't have as many problems as the A-380...

 

Does NATO need more airlift? Yes, Is the C-17 a great aircraft,? Yes There are two ways of looking at this, Is the USA pushingNATO to buy in order to prop up the Boeing production line?  yes, Are France and Germany trying to delay it so that the A400m can have a slice? Yes!

 

There are more advantages to the A-400m than meets the eye, and contrary to what many people think (not all might i add!) it is not simply a competitor to the c-130, I am sure you can go and read the stats yourselves, though simply giving stats on payload range does not give the whole story. Undoubtedly the C-17 is a league ahead, but the A-400m really sits between the two.

 

The other point is internal cross section, the below diagram shows this well. Whilst the A400m will not be able to transport MBT's, it will be able to transport a larger range of vehicles, and also mean that a great many vehicles will be able to be transported un-prepared (many vehicles need parts removed to fit).

This helps in other ways too, it can carry 9 pallets AND 54 troops, as oppsoed to one or the other, as opposed to 5 pallets OR 90 troops (8 pallets or 124 troops for teh J model).

 

I think, if it were not for political patronage to Lockheed, there would not be a C130-J program.  This plane's primary designed mission was to provide air transportability for Stryker Bdes.  (Note: A fully loaded Stryker does not fit in a C130-J  unless you take parts off and get a weight waiver.)  And for whom does this aircraft provide this service, answer: the US Army.  Tactical theater logistics aircraft are not needed by the US Air Force.  They would rather spend their budget on the F-22/35 program.  

 

If the US leaves a Stryker Bde in Germany (as planned) after the Iraqi War drawdown, a fleet of A400Ms would be a good match up for NATO's intra theater requirements.  For Stryker Bdes stationed in the US, the C-17 would be the best tool to use for inter theater/worldwide requirements.  

 

 Like the DC-3, the C-130 program design is getting 'long of tooth' and needs to be upgraded or replaced to meet future requiremens and efficiencys like the use of carbon fiber.