Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: C-17 v A400M
Softwar    3/2/2007 9:14:31 AM
Aviation Week Feb. 26, 2007 page 31 Robert Wall/Douglas Barrie France and Germany are throwing up hurdles ot a NATO plan to purchase C-17s to bolster the alliance's much-needed strategic airlift capability. Their opposition is seen as stemming partly from a desire to protect their own industrial interests in the form of the Airbus A400M. According to the AV Week article: - The A400M engine flight testing has been delayed (again) pushing it back from the end of March to sometime in the summer. The TP400-D6 has experience several previous delays and has yet to run flight trials on a C-130 testbed. - French and German officials are using procedural issues on the NATO NAMSA board to stall any C-17 purchase. They claim NAMSA does not have the authority to buy the planes. - The first A400M is suppose to enter service in 2009 with France, followed by 2011 with the UK but - the Brits are almost certain it will be held up. - NATO may have to resort to leasing more Russian AN-124s to make up the difference until something happens or the A400Ms are delivered.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
reefdiver       3/20/2007 12:35:54 PM

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...
 
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       4/21/2007 4:45:04 AM
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).
 
http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/media/a400m_4.jpg" width=500 border=0 longDesc="Internal dimensions of the a400m">
 
Quote    Reply

macawman       6/12/2007 4:45:03 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman        6/18/2007 4:53:40 PM




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.



 



 




"nobody including USA transport MBT by air."
 

And you wonder why people question your creditability




With the exception of extreme military emergencies ( like the incident with the 173rd Airborne in the initial phase of GWII, Northern Iraq) and Boeing demonstrations, the US Airforce does not ship MBTs or any other high tonnage equipment into a theater of conflict by air transport.  It is far too expensive cost wise and in aircraft longevity.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics