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
scuttlebut steve    questions about airbus   3/3/2007 5:06:12 AM
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?
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       3/3/2007 5:33:54 AM
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.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

TAC II       3/3/2007 10:33:12 AM
What the SALIS countries are seeking is strategic airlift, which is why An-124 were leased.

The C-17 is a genuine strategic airlifter across the criteria, there is enough C-130 around. The A400 can perform in this role, but is ineffiecient at it.

The A400 is not a contender for this programme. The A400 is not what is needed.

BTW:

http://forsvaret.dk/NR/rdonlyres/24BD77E3-720C-4606-95B3-210B8F92716B/41301/20070204Leopard2AN124PTS106copystor.bmp" border="0">
 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve       3/7/2007 4:19:21 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       3/7/2007 5:07:28 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 creditabilty

 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       3/12/2007 9:09:00 AM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin    Do turbo props give a range advantage for strategic lift aircraft?   3/19/2007 11:59:55 AM
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.



 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       3/19/2007 2:47:28 PM

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.



Its down to fuel consumption. Turboprops are more economical than turbofans and less susceptable to FOD ingestion, (what you need for landing on semi-prepared strips). The downside is the noise and slightly lower speed for the turboprop, but the A400m is expected to cruise at mach .68 against the C-130's speed of mach .57 and the C-17's speed of mach .77.

The A400m is really a C-130 for the 21st century. Military vehicles are bigger and heavier now than they were 50 years ago when the Herc was designed, so the A400m is really intended to do the job now that is equivalent to the job the Herc did then.



 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve       3/19/2007 5:33:01 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       3/20/2007 6:59:32 AM
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?

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics