I think the A400 is a question best decided in say 5-10 years, when all the Hercs are gone, the A400 has become a proven design and filled most of the inital purchases (ie UK/germany etc) so that it becomes a well known quanity. With the C-17 purchase, we aren't in a super critical situation to need to rush into A400 purchase.

I'd replace "-130" with "-27j" in that sentence.

IMPO the C-130J is not dissimilar to the Super Seasprite saga (except that with the Sprog we were offered new build but chose rebuilt airframes), in that it was meant to be a an inexpensive, low risk option of updating a proven design with new engines and avionics to deliver 70 to 90% of the capability of a totally new design.  In the long run we chose not to wait or pay for the bugs to be ironed out on the Sprog but had no choice but to persist with the C-130J.  In both cases legacy platforms had to be worked harder, which logic dictates will cut their useful service lives significantly.

If we bought it it would be because we needed a medium lifter where the A400 and C-17's are heavy lifters. The fact that it is an old design is beside the point if it does the job.

Where the A400 has the edge over the C-17 is price, we can afford to replace 12 C-130H with 10 to 12 A400's.  While an extra couple of C-17's would be nice, we can not afford, nor do we need 10 to 12 of them.

 

Incorrect. The prices that I have seen for the A400M are 100 Euros (around $125 million US) and up. The C-130 comes in at around $70 million US and the C-17 comes in at $218 million US. IF it comes in at $125 million the A400M is more than  half the price and about half the capability of the C-17 and about twice the price and twice the capability of the C-130. What would be the point in running the extra logistics train when you could just buy half or twice the number for the same price or next depending on your priorities? AFAIK the type is in a bit of a nowhere space as it can't lift the biggest outsized load to call itself a heavy lifter but won't give us the flexibility of a more numerous medium-lifter fleet.

Another factor is the event of high altitude precision air drop using GPS guided airfoils which is an ideal mission for C-17 / A400 types with their large internal volumes and high transit speeds.  The US is trialing airdroping Strykers and intend to do the same with FCS, with airdrops seen as the fastest and most economical way to get heavy equipment to where it is needed.  Think of it this way the C-17 / A400 will not need to land to unload, the GPS guided pallet is simply dropped out the back at high altitude then the aircraft returns to base for another load at a very significant saving in fuel and time and the aircraft its self is never in harms way.  The Herc is simply too small and its performance too low to effectively conduct a mission such as this.

The other developing method is the Low Cost / Low Altitude (LCLA) airdrop which is an extremely accurate and inexpensive method of delivering supplies to troops in the field and FOB's, it is in actual fact cheaper and safer than using helicopters.  A C-27 is probably about the largest airframe you would want for this role with the US currently using leased CASA 212's for the role in Afghanistan, where they have been dropping fuel and ammunition to remote FOB's for a while now.  155mm rounds are the perfect example with this method getting pallets into firebases faster, cheaper and more safely than a Chinook ever could.

 

So after reading I'm gonna say a good set up would be something like this

CASA - 212
C-27
AC-27 pending on slow tankers
C-130 replace in 2030
AC-130 or slow tankers for the ac-27s
C-17
I left out the A400M cause at this point AFAIK its price is an unknown quantity
 

 

 

we definitely aren't buying some of them

 

and there's a bit of "too close" overlap between some of the types.

 

IMO we'll end up with 3 FW transport types - and if they go mad with the axe, it will be 2 + a rotor to backfill on the smaller FW lifters.

Since the latest news is that the budget surplus has evaporated I reckon even the latter is looking distinctly optimistic. Under current conditions I reckon we won't get any more Chinooks (the answer will be "The MRH-90's will do"), we won't get a light-lifter to replace the Bou (or at least for five or ten years when they realise how much it is costing them to ship every soldier with a stubbed toe by Chinook or Herc) and we will be running the H's for another ten years (rather than getting the six J's they were talking about last year).

Other predictions of doom,

 

-No third sealift ship.

-No fourth AWD.

-Land 17 canned with the M-198 and L-119 upgraded instead.

-Land 400 postponed or canned.

-The P-3's upgraded and kept in service rather than a new maritime patroller.

- The second new battalion group delayed or canned.

-Only 50 F-35's

 

I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see the government sending a load of cash to overseas suppliers at this time when it could be spent on thier infrastructure program here to stimulate the economy.

the throwaway line is to save $1bn a year for 10 years. 

the public line is that defence is to realise 3% savings per year  (depending on area the real numbers are significantly higher)

 

factor in the above even at the conservative level - and a lot of big ticket gear is heading for the axe