Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
NATO Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: France/Germany Block NATO C-17
Softwar    2/28/2007 11:02:42 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.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Griffin       2/28/2007 11:03:10 PM
No surprises here.  At least you got orders for 8 of the Globemasters from Australia and Canada.
 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve       3/1/2007 12:53:02 AM
what's funny is that even the a400m website mentions it only as a competitor to replace the several hundred older c-130s and c-160s, and this plane really isnt in the same class as the c17. (looks like a great airlifter, just a lot smaller than c17s)
 
Ive heard that some euro complaints about the plane are that the c-130s only fly with full load 20% of the time themselves so it makes little sense to replace them with an aircraft with nearly double the capacity with no demand for more room.  does anyone know if they are running this against the c17 because it is not working out as well for the c130 market as hoped?
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid       3/1/2007 1:34:51 AM
At 127 million euros per unit as a system price (approximately $167 million equivalent), Airbus keeps claiming a per unit price of 100 million euros unit price. For comparison a C-130J new build costs about $67 million or about half the price. A C-17 costs about $180 million. In terms of of capability on paper the A400M falls between the C-130J and the C-17 so it would be meant for those countries that want to project a heavy force or need to move heavy logistical supplies around. Of course the issue then comes down to support footprint of said aircraft. The C-17 is a workhorse because it can land at just about any known airport in the world currently and quite a few makeshift ones as well, the C-130 has the forward deployabilty factor to deploy to dirt airfields just about anywhere (and quite a few short dirt strips at that). We unfortunately know virtually NOTHING about the A400Ms actual performance because the damn thing hasnt even been assembled yet. So until then its effectively "vaporware".
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       3/1/2007 11:06:34 AM
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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics