Ozair
Posts: 2469
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 12:22 pm

Noray wrote:
The art of denying has reached a high level here.

Who is denying what? We all know the A400M is more capable than the C-130J, it should be given it costs nearly three times as much to acquire and weighs twice as much.

Noray wrote:
Meanwhile, those who operate the A400M and the C-130J side by side report that the A400M was able to "take three times as much as a C-130 into a tight, small strip without taking any military risk in its performance."
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/atlas- ... -the-load/

I doubt that it's cheaper to operate three C-130Js rather than one A400M.

Great. It is good to see it provided value for the RAF in that scenario.

The question is, why does it need to provide the same value for the USAF, which operates over 200 strategic transports that carry twice the load of an A400M nearly twice as far and 400 tactical transports below it that carry 2/3 the load almost as far? The USAF does not need it, it isn't denial or hated of Europe or anything so stupid, they already have enough transport capability. When they look to replace either airframe, the USAF will look for a significant capability increase that the A400M does not provide over their current fleet mix.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 12:49 pm

Maybe a Northrop Grumman C-43 could be considered as a locally build alternative.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 1:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I agree that the current political climate isn't ideal. But why waste money on developing another aircraft for the Army/Marines when a perfectly acceptable example is flying? Europe buys enough American stuff to justify it and it happened before with small requirements.

If it was about not wasting money the Europeans would have never built the A400M, they would have bought C130J and C17 and lived with the gap in between just like USA and NATO does. Airbus too would be happier if this is how it went down, knowing what they now know about the A400M program past present and future.


Sure, but given the A400 is up and running why not buy into it.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Noray
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 1:42 pm

Ozair wrote:
Noray wrote:
The art of denying has reached a high level here.

Who is denying what? We all know the A400M is more capable than the C-130J, it should be given it costs nearly three times as much to acquire and weighs twice as much.

I don't buy these numbers. And two or three C-130s will need more pilots and more servicing as well.

Ozair wrote:
The question is, why does it need to provide the same value for the USAF, which operates over 200 strategic transports that carry twice the load of an A400M nearly twice as far and 400 tactical transports below it that carry 2/3 the load almost as far? The USAF does not need it, it isn't denial or hated of Europe or anything so stupid, they already have enough transport capability. When they look to replace either airframe, the USAF will look for a significant capability increase that the A400M does not provide over their current fleet mix.

If those 200 strategic transports are unable to land on that little island runway, they provide little help. I've heard that there are US forces that might operate in similar circumstances. Operations of the US Marine Corps in the Pacific have been named in that context in the past.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 3:52 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I agree that the current political climate isn't ideal. But why waste money on developing another aircraft for the Army/Marines when a perfectly acceptable example is flying? Europe buys enough American stuff to justify it and it happened before with small requirements.

If it was about not wasting money the Europeans would have never built the A400M, they would have bought C130J and C17 and lived with the gap in between just like USA and NATO does. Airbus too would be happier if this is how it went down, knowing what they now know about the A400M program past present and future.

Sure, but given the A400 is up and running why not buy into it.

For the exact same reasons that the A400M member nations other than the UK didn't buy in to the up and running C-17 and C-130.

I honestly can't see the US Congress ignoring the kind of pressure they'd get from LM, Boeing, NG, et al and vote to fund a purchase of A400M.

keesje wrote:
Maybe a Northrop Grumman C-43 could be considered as a locally build alternative.

Aren't you the one who criticizes others for being relying too much on hopes?

Ozair wrote:
The question is, why does it need to provide the same value for the USAF, which operates over 200 strategic transports that carry twice the load of an A400M nearly twice as far and 400 tactical transports below it that carry 2/3 the load almost as far? The USAF does not need it, it isn't denial or hated of Europe or anything so stupid, they already have enough transport capability. When they look to replace either airframe, the USAF will look for a significant capability increase that the A400M does not provide over their current fleet mix.

I could see the point that the Army would like to have an aircraft built around the requirements of transporting something like the failed FCS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems ). I just don't see them getting the funding to do not just a FCS vehcle but to then buy a fleet of transporters built to match their requirements. As you say, it'd only happen if the USAF had decided it's time to move on and replace one of the airframes they already have, then they'd at least listen to Army requirements. I don't see Congress agreeing to fund a purchase of A400Ms though.

It's pretty instructive to consider that FCS failed even when one option to transport it would seem to have been buying A400Ms yet no one involved was advocating that approach.

Noray wrote:
If those 200 strategic transports are unable to land on that little island runway, they provide little help.

For the US at least, there's other tools in the toolbox.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
SamYeager2016
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 4:35 pm

The thread title is "A400M Update" not "Why the US should buy the A400M" or "Why the US only requires its existing US aircraft". If people don't have updates on the A400M then please stop wasting other people's time posting irrelevant stuff. :mad:
 
Egerton
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Tue May 15, 2018 6:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


Sorry to be late in seeing this. There is a lot of ocean in the pond. UK seemed to use this sort of capability a surprising amount when we had Nimrods. How do the US deal with the same issue from their side? Perhaps the ocean only get rough on the UK side, to do with the prevailing wind?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Tue May 15, 2018 6:28 pm

SamYeager2016 wrote:
The thread title is "A400M Update" not "Why the US should buy the A400M" or "Why the US only requires its existing US aircraft". If people don't have updates on the A400M then please stop wasting other people's time posting irrelevant stuff.

Maybe we should see if Airbus Sales is updating the EU politicians on how badly they want to sell A400Ms to Saudia Arabia? :biggrin:

Egerton wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


Sorry to be late in seeing this. There is a lot of ocean in the pond. UK seemed to use this sort of capability a surprising amount when we had Nimrods. How do the US deal with the same issue from their side? Perhaps the ocean only get rough on the UK side, to do with the prevailing wind?

By using fine European equipment such as Dolphin and Spartan and 'Ocean Sentry'! :bigthumbsup:

A few LM Hercs and 'Lockheed' MH60s too.

You can buy these for a lot less than A400Ms.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... d#Aircraft

Updating my own earlier comment with some data:

Revelation wrote:
I could see the point that the Army would like to have an aircraft built around the requirements of transporting something like the failed FCS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems ).

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/arm ... quisition/ says:

As a result, even after the Army radically trimmed requirements, the GCV designs weighed in at 56 to 70 tons, depending on the armor kit installed, compared to 35 to 40 tons for the Bradley.
....
Arguably, modern urban warfare requires a heavily armored infantry carrier like GCV: look at Israel’s 49-ton Achzarit and 66-ton Namer.

It makes me wonder if there's much hope for A400M ( brochure capacity: 37t ) being used to transport a vehicle that can be used in an IED rich environment.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 8:00 pm

I guess the C-17 and C-130J are the greatests & the army must make sure everything fits in those and everything will be just fine.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Noray
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Tue May 15, 2018 10:16 pm

Egerton wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


Sorry to be late in seeing this. There is a lot of ocean in the pond. UK seemed to use this sort of capability a surprising amount when we had Nimrods. How do the US deal with the same issue from their side? Perhaps the ocean only get rough on the UK side, to do with the prevailing wind?

Now that we know that an A400M replaces the C-130J in the Falkland Islands it makes sense that they tested the capability prior to this.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2469
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue May 15, 2018 10:54 pm

Noray wrote:
I don't buy these numbers. And two or three C-130s will need more pilots and more servicing as well.

I specifically said cost to acquire. Yes additional costs will arrive from operating two or three aircraft over one but additional opportunities also present themselves by having the ability to have two or three aircraft in multiple places at the same time. These are general operational trade-offs that need to be considered and made when planning air mobility movement.

Just so we are again clear. Operators of both aircraft indicatet they use the aircraft for different segments including the French clearly saying they see the C-130J in a different transport capability to the A400M.
Noray wrote:
If those 200 strategic transports are unable to land on that little island runway, they provide little help. I've heard that there are US forces that might operate in similar circumstances. Operations of the US Marine Corps in the Pacific have been named in that context in the past.

You are trying to identify a niche use case. Instead of looking at the 5% of scenarios where the A400M may provide a capability improvement on their fleet consider the 95% where it does not…

Where should a nation invest their money in that context?

keesje wrote:
I guess the C-17 and C-130J are the greatests & the army must make sure everything fits in those and everything will be just fine.

Keesje, because your powers of comprehension appear to be failing, no one is saying the C-17 and C-130J are better than the A400M. They sit in different capability bands and it is quite clear that different nations have different requirements for their transport fleets.

For nations like the US, Australia and Canada a C-17/C-130 combo works very well. They have large distances to cover and the combination of a large strategic transport with a forward deployed tactical transport works well. For others a one transport fleet that can cover some of the use cases of both segments will suit better.
 
mrg
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun May 20, 2018 7:31 pm

@ Revelation
"It makes me wonder if there's much hope for A400M ( brochure capacity: 37t ) being used to transport a vehicle that can be used in an IED rich environment."
There is no way an occupying force can sustain an MBT weight category APC force. Tank transporters just to position APC's? No way. The A400M will get 30 ton vehicles onto CBR 6 runways in a manner that the C-17 cannot. The A400M is very relevant.
Here in Germany we focus on balancing the budget to the exclusion of much else- which isn't always good. I hope that Russian machinations in Eastern Europe will help concentrate minds here in the EU.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu May 24, 2018 10:03 am

Revelation wrote:
Aren't you the one who criticizes others for being relying too much on hopes?


At some point the US Army, Marines will put new requirements on the table. looking at recent programs, RFI's one can pretty well predict how they will look. Boeing and LM worked on them before.

Image

Image
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-will-boeing-fatten-orderbook-with-shrunken-345146/

Then everybody is invited to come up with ideas, proposals, plans. The big US defense contractors will go in, Boeing, LM, NG, Raytheon, L3. Great artist impressions, visualization, visions will fly around the room. VTOL, stealth, hybrid, etc.

Then some skilled people from DoD will make rough costs / planning / risk assements, based on past projects. Regardless of what the industry presented.. Probably staggering numbers.

Then one of the parties mentioned comes in with this locally build, upgraded C-43. With all the cost and risk of that. This is then presented to DoD and congress committees. With some objective, most unwelcome conclusions.

Then something like an uncontained engine failure happens. From all directions well financed people jump in, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt in congress and on TV. Flag waving, bending the rules, putting on law firms raising hundreds of questions. A tanker like process, "read my lips"

And another decade of posts on this forum. http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1019919
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu May 24, 2018 11:21 am

keesje wrote:
Then one of the parties mentioned comes in with this (A400M-based) locally build, upgraded C-43. With all the cost and risk of that. This is then presented to DoD and congress committees. With some objective, most unwelcome conclusions.

Congress being objective?

That idea, like the rest of the post, is a fantasy.

Airbus would be better off going the Bullshit Castle / Serious Fraud route rather than relying on Congress's objectivity.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Ozair
Posts: 2469
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu May 24, 2018 10:03 pm

Revelation wrote:


That idea, like the rest of the post, is a fantasy.

I wasn't actually sure what any of that post was about...

But if the insinuation is that the A400M may play a role in a future USAF competition for a new transport then it is certainly possible, it all depends on how the requirements are crafted. If we look at the T-X competition all three entrants actually rely on foreign designs of some sort as cost and risk reduction are big factors in the selection.

My guess though is that any new USAF transport would seek either payload or distance requirements that the A400M could not meet, if it was even in production by the time the USAF was ready to order.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 12:07 am

Ozair wrote:
I wasn't actually sure what any of that post was about...

But if the insinuation is that the A400M may play a role in a future USAF competition for a new transport then it is certainly possible, it all depends on how the requirements are crafted. If we look at the T-X competition all three entrants actually rely on foreign designs of some sort as cost and risk reduction are big factors in the selection.

My guess though is that any new USAF transport would seek either payload or distance requirements that the A400M could not meet, if it was even in production by the time the USAF was ready to order.

I think your point about future requirements is correct, and I also think while the US defense industry has indeed allowed their "turf" to be encroached by things like trainers, light helicopters, some armored vehicles etc without putting up much a fight because they really don't have a big interest in those spaces, I think an A400M or bigger transport would be seen by at least one or two of the contractors as worth fighting over. Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Ozair
Posts: 2469
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 2:21 am

Revelation wrote:
I think your point about future requirements is correct, and I also think while the US defense industry has indeed allowed their "turf" to be encroached by things like trainers, light helicopters, some armored vehicles etc without putting up much a fight because they really don't have a big interest in those spaces, I think an A400M or bigger transport would be seen by at least one or two of the contractors as worth fighting over. Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.

It is worth noting that before the GCV was cancelled in 2014 the weight of the concept vehicles was approaching 70t. There is no way a modified A400M is going to lift that payload no matter where it is built. The GCV's replacement, the NGCV, is still in concept phase and the plan is for entry into service in 2035. While that vehicle may end up being lighter than the previous iteration (I really hope so...) the US Army can't tell you today what it will look like or weigh and probably won't know themselves for another seven years.

What we can say though is that come 2030 and the US Army considers mobility of its future ground fleet on USAF transports the C-5/C-17 will comfortably transport whatever is built. I expect a new program is likely to develop an aircraft that is capable of transporting the NGCV, amongst other things, with an IOC in the mid/late 2030s and is about the perfect timing for replacing the C-5M/C-17 fleets with one airframe. By that time I don't expect an A400M to be competitive, if as already suggested it is even still in production, for USAF requirements.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 12:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.


Agree, if the A400M was invented and build in Marietta Georgia or Long Beach, DoD would have jumped long ago.

https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 12:46 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.


Agree, if the A400M was invented and build in Marietta Georgia or Long Beach, DoD would have jumped long ago.

https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M


Which confirms that the only reasons the A400M is not flying for the US are protectionism and nationalism. Funny how they come later on to give lessons about quality products and superiority, as long as they ignore what else is flying around and brag about their belly button.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 12:52 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.


Agree, if the A400M was invented and build in Marietta Georgia or Long Beach, DoD would have jumped long ago.

https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M

But, that's not what I said, so you're not agreeing.

If A400M was US designed and developed it would be designed based on USAF's needs not the various EU customer's needs so it'd be a very different aircraft.

And I think the congress of the 90s/00s would have been much more likely to fund a non-US developed aircraft that the current one.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 2:39 pm

Jayafe wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.


Agree, if the A400M was invented and build in Marietta Georgia or Long Beach, DoD would have jumped long ago.

https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M


Which confirms that the only reasons the A400M is not flying for the US are protectionism and nationalism. Funny how they come later on to give lessons about quality products and superiority, as long as they ignore what else is flying around and brag about their belly button.

Ok, so you're saying Keesje's misstatements based my post confirms the only reasons the A400M is not flying for the US are protectionism and nationalism?

It's definitely a factor in procurement, and is definitely more prominent in the current Congress, but no, it's not the only reason.

LM was an original team member of the program that evolved into A400M and if the design goals had converged it would be no big surprise if the resulting aircraft was in the USAF fleet.

Speaking of ignoring what else is flying around, consider how much time and money it took to develop the A400M engines, especially given their rookie mistakes meant they had to re-develop the ECU because they didn't understand compliance, and how the gearbox and software loading issues impacted the program.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
bigjku
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri May 25, 2018 3:46 pm

Jayafe wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Given that Congress is largely funded by US corporations and the current amount of jingoism I don't see a program getting the green light without it being a largely US designed and developed product.


Agree, if the A400M was invented and build in Marietta Georgia or Long Beach, DoD would have jumped long ago.

https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M


Which confirms that the only reasons the A400M is not flying for the US are protectionism and nationalism. Funny how they come later on to give lessons about quality products and superiority, as long as they ignore what else is flying around and brag about their belly button.


This is such utter tripe.

The reality is the A400m would never have been developed in the US because a very expensive program to sit in between the C-17 and the C-130 would never rise to the point where it would actually be a funded priority.

Just off the top of my head the USAF has the following things to fund since the A400m launch that are vastly more important.

F-22 upgrades and procurement

F-35 procurement which is basically recapitalizing the whole fighter force

Tanker procurement

ICBM replacement

GPS System Upgrades

B-2 upgrades

B-21 development and procurement

B-61 upgrades and life extension

AWACS upgrades

And that is just off the top of my head. It doesn’t even account for weapons procurement and improvements or improvements to existing aircraft.

Which of these should be bumped for making room to purchase something to stick in the niche between the C-130 and the C-17? I am honestly curious.

I can’t think of a bigger waste of money honestly than introducing a new type for this. It just doesn’t seem necessary.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777PHX, BlueLine, jupiter2, withak and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos