Sign in to follow this  
Guest IanP

Airbus A400M in US colors...

Recommended Posts

have seen a few repaints of the A400M in US military colors. Looks nice, but wonder if this isnt politically impossible. I just dont see the US military buying a direct competitor to the Lockheed C-130 and in some missions the Boeing C-17. This would hurt the US military manufacturing sector. Granted the C-130 (even J model) is getting a bit long in the tooth, but politically this doesnt seem to wash.Anybody have any specific info on US views on the A400? Im all for capable aircraft...but this seems far fetched. Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Maybe it's not feasible to sell to the US government, but I think there have been quite a few orders placed by European militaries. It's definately more cost-effective to operate than the C-130.

Share this post


Link to post

so what you're saying is... people believe in the free market, until they see it in action against their nationalism

Share this post


Link to post

Many C-130's are reaching the end of their airframe life cycle.The C-130 J was a failure as a replacement upgrade.The early plans back in the 80's were for the C-17 to replace both the C-141 and the C-130 - but that isn't working out very well.The C-130 is an extremely versitile and effective aircraft, not only for the US military but world wide.Unfortunately the United States has no plans to manufacture the replacement aircraft which will be needed before too long.Personally I think the A-400M is one of the better business decisions Airbus has ever made. With the US bowing out of the running, the only competition would be Russian, Chinese or Japanese. Airbus is years ahead of them in development.That airframe type and capacity will be needed for a long time to come - and the A400M should cost significantly less to operate than the C-130.

Share this post


Link to post

I just hope the Wilco version is a sign of things to come with Airbus modelling in FS, as it's a pleasure to fly. As to whether or not US military will buy it there are no orders from the US yet, but many other confirmed orders from around the world, not just Europe. If the Wilco one and the Airbus Military site are anything to go by it will be a sweet replacement, and every bit as mission capable as the old C130 was (is). I think Airbus will come up a lot, and in a lot of areas of aviation, already they are giving the likes of Boeing a run for their money. I'm no lover of Airbus planes (I think for looks the 747 kills the 340 hands down) but am in favour of competition.

Share this post


Link to post

>Maybe it's not feasible to sell to the US government, but I>think there have been quite a few orders placed by European>militaries. It's definately more cost-effective to operate>than the C-130.The A-400M is not going to even deliver for at least 11 more years, so any statements about its supposed cost-effectiveness are nothing but advertising hype. If you need airlift before 2017, the A400M is super cost effective...it doesn't exist, therefore it costs nothing.Scarebus Industrie diverted a large number of its engineering staff from the A400M to the A380 because their delivery schedule to Singapore Airlines is seriously in jeopardy, and the contracts they have with them will result in giant penalties if they deliver late. So I wouldn't bet on that 2017 A400M delivery, either.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

>Many C-130's are reaching the end of their airframe life>cycle.And there are many hundreds of E and H models with many years still left on 'em.>The C-130 J was a failure as a replacement upgrade.no No NO!! Says who? Airbus??>The early plans back in the 80's were for the C-17 to replace>both the C-141 and the C-130 - but that isn't working out very>well.Absolutely false...the C-130 has never been slated for replacement by the Air Force. The C-17 was (and still is) intended to perform some of the mission roles that were formerly exclusively for the tactical airlifters, but it isn't an issue of "not working out very well" at all...the C-17 was bought in fewer numbers and is being used far more heavily in its strategic airlift role than anyone would have anticipated...it's succeeding famously in supporting a war being fought currently in two fronts, both nearly halfway around the world.>Unfortunately the United States has no plans to manufacture>the replacement aircraft which will be needed before too>long.The "United States" doesn't manufacture anything. But Lockheed Martin has the C-130J in production, and it is a far more capable aircraft than its predecessors. Their biggest problem is the longevity of the previous models.>>Personally I think the A-400M is one of the better business>decisions Airbus has ever made. With the US bowing out of the>running, the only competition would be Russian, Chinese or>Japanese. Airbus is years ahead of them in development.US bowing out of the running?? Given that LM has the only aircraft of this class actually in production through the next decade, I find this assumption of defeat and withdrawal stunningly ignorant.>That airframe type and capacity will be needed for a long time>to come - and the A400M should cost significantly less to>operate than the C-130.Again, says who? The A400M is still just an unrealized idea. And they have major engineering challenges still facing them...for example how they're going to be able to clean up the dirty flow behind the plane for use in airdrop and tanker applications.What the A400M should or shouldn't do is utterly immaterial, as it doesn't even exist yet...and won't for a long time still. And the rumors of the C-130J's demise are greatly exaggerated.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

I'll never understand the hatred Airbus garners from some people. :-roll

Share this post


Link to post

Bob, then why allow the closing of the C-17 plant by not ordering more?

Share this post


Link to post

And the U.S.A has a serious history of ordering and using `overseas` products, often by licensing manufacture in the States, or via commercial offsets that ensure substantial business for US based businesses - GoshawkSpartanShorts 360DHC BeaverDHC OtterSpitfireMosquitoto name but a few - current, and present.So, as long as Airbus have a product that has no obvious replacement within the US industry (and the Airbus is `next-generation` whereas he C130J is still only a complex upgrade of the old basic design) I see no reason, other than jingoistic fervour, that would prevent Airus selling to the US military. They, after all, owe it to their soldiers, sailors and airmen to choose the best product for the job at the price.The payload/range/speed/field length combination of the A400M would require 2 or 3 C130J's to achieve the same productivity, so to regard the A400M as a competitor to a fifty year old design tha flies lower, slower, with less payload while using more fuel per cargo mile is a little unrealistic. It is not, it is a new product designed to meet the new challenges of the new era. The Herc has served magnificently, just like the DC-3 before it, but it's operating limits will increasingly limit its usefulness in the coming decades, before age renders it obsolete. The US have no `follow-on` planned for the C130 after the J so there is simply no basis for comparison between the J and the A400M. They are different classes of airlifters, and if the U.S. ientifies a need for an aircraft like the A400M, then they will buy it. The C-17 is a different category of airlifter again,but is actally closer in overall performance to the A400M than either are to the C130. If they are closing the C17 production lines, then the only market alternatives are the A400M or one of the Russian airlifters, and I can see that the Russian aircraft might be politically unacceptable, so what choice does it leave?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post

This is descending into an Airliners.net thread.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Dar...plewithears.gif---------------------------------------"If it doesn't have a VC, I won't be flying it http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/smug.gif" ... hang on a minute .... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/unsure.gif ... that is too restrictive! Most flight simulator planes don't have a fully functional VC .... I'm happy to fly non-VC planes such as the brilliant iFDG range, Samdim's fantastic aircraft, POSKY's wonderful planes, and many many others! I'm the richer for it :).[/b]Advice for uploaders: please remove those horrible thumbs.db files - they are useless :)

Share this post


Link to post

Not really `descending`, just trying to stop bigotry and over-zealous nationalistic ideology from clouding rational, reasoned judgement.The Not Invented Here syndrome is a major stumbling block to members of the armed forces receiving the best and most suitable product for their needs. Not just in the USA.The Hummer is a prime vehicle example - too big, too heavy, too thirsty, too complex and not bulletproof or mine-resistant, with little or no overseas sales potential. In the UK, we had the underdeveloped SA80 semi-automatic rifle at the army and it jams, it's not acurate, doesn't meet the requirements for the job for the majority - and costs twice as much as need be now that it's `fixed`.The French have an entire defence industry founded on the premise that they don't buy military hardware from other nations.The A400M can operate at airliner speeds, at airliner altitudes among the real airliners and with an unrefuelled radius of operation considerably in excess of what the C130J can manage (which has consistently failed to meet the fuel consumption guarantees offered by the engine manufacturer). At that height it is indistinguishable on radar form `normal` airliner traffic, and only the most insane anti-aircraft missile battery operator would risk an international incident by shooting down a civilian airliner. The flight profile of the C130 is identifiably `transport plane` and it's cruise capabilities put it at considerably greater risk.All of this needs to be considered before we start worrying about NIH. The fuss over the Presidents choice of next-generation helicopter when a European consortium presented a product that was technically and cost-effectively superior is the kind of warning signal that should send shivers up the spine of any member of the military who finds him/herself at excessive risk due to political whim, greed and jingoistic of self-serving politicians and bureaucrats. Allcott

Share this post


Link to post

Not to forget the Harrier of course.>>The C-130 J was a failure as a replacement upgrade.>no No NO!! Says who? Airbus??The Royal Air Force has had several problems with the aircraft. For a start it could not be cleared for aerial refuelling which led to the IFR probes being removed.Perhaps you should have a read through these.http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/24/pentagon.planeaudit/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul23.htmlA big quote from the articles>>"In eight years, the inspector general's report said, "not one C-130J delivered aircraft was fully compliant with the contract specification. . . . The Air Force did not properly manage the program." It cited the fact that Sambur's office paid Lockheed "almost the full price" for every deficient plane and approved a new multiyear contract in March 2003 despite the absence of a "stable design.""

Share this post


Link to post

This is the info I found on the A400M. The A400M programme was launched in May 2003 with a single order for 180 aircraft for seven European NATO nations. South Africa joined the programme in April 2005 with an order for eight aircraft and Malaysia followed in December 2005 by ordering four aircraft, bringing the total order book to date to 192. The A400M will first fly in early 2008 with deliveries beginning in 2009. http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html Craig

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to take issue with part of that... But it's only a minor one! ;)"In the UK, we had the underdeveloped SA80 semi-automatic rifle at the army and it jams, it's not acurate, doesn't meet the requirements for the job for the majority - and costs twice as much as need be now that it's `fixed`"SA-80 is amazingly accurate. It's phenomenally accurate. Has virtually no kick whatsoever and even I got amazing five round groupings with it (I'm a lousy shot!) It's the best range weapon the British Army has ever had. Unfortunately that doesn't make it good for operational use and the rust and jamming problems really are serious. It's not fully fixed yet, or wasn't according to the last person I spoke to about it. Given the option, most soldiers who remember it want the L1A1 SLR (FN-LAR) back!Back on topic, there are innumerable experiences, as have already been mentioned, of the US Military buying or leasing non-US sourced hardware... I'll add a few more.M249 SAW is a Belgian FN Minimi.The COAX and Gunner's machine guns on the M1 Abrams are also FN weapons.Many US Special Forces use Heckler & Koch MP5 derivative submachine guns.The US Marines use Norwegian BV206 "Bog Trotter" transports.The USCG (officially military) still fly Eurocopter SA365 Dauphins.The A330 combo transport/tanker is also still in the USAF competition.If A400M was cheaper and more cost effective than the US manufactured competition, it would be used, regardless of NIHS.Cheers,Ian P.

Share this post


Link to post

when the M16 was introduced in Vietnam it had horrible reliability, now it is the number one weapon of choice

Share this post


Link to post

Well, you got me on that one, the 2017 delivery dates are the first-available after the current 192 European orders are delivered.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

>I'll never understand the hatred Airbus garners from some>people. :-roll You know, it's not hatred to challenge folks throwing out advertising propaganda as established fact.Airbus has announced Chile's intent to buy A-400Ms, when all they have done is agree to investigate the possibility of buying some A400Ms in the future. Airbus then turns that into a smoke-and-mirrors media hype blitz that suggests a sale has already been concluded.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

>Bob, then why allow the closing of the C-17 plant by not>ordering more?Because the USAF's leadership determined that we have enough to do the job.My point is that the C-17 is being used much more extensively in its strat lift role than planned, so the Herc still has pretty much exclusive claim to most of the tactical lift mission. The previous post suggested that there was a plan to replace the Herc with the C-17 which was not "working out well," which is totally untrue.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

>And the U.S.A has a serious history of ordering and using>`overseas` products, often by licensing manufacture in the>States, or via commercial offsets that ensure substantial>business for US based businesses - >>Goshawk>Spartan>Shorts 360>DHC Beaver>DHC Otter>Spitfire>Mosquito>And Rolls Royce engines on quite a number of US aircraft.>So, as long as Airbus have a product that has no obvious>replacement within the US industry (and the Airbus is>`next-generation` whereas he C130J is still only a complex>upgrade of the old basic design) The LM guys lament that fact that the J looks like a C-130H. But it's much more than "a complex upgrade of an old basic design." The wing planforms are different, the engines are a far cry different, the glass flight deck is nothing like an H model, the ACL is 75,000 lbs of cargo, and the streched -30 version can carry almost as many pallets as a C-141B. Not "will be able to carry." Can carry.>The payload/range/speed/field length combination of the A400M>would require 2 or 3 C130J's to achieve the same productivity,That's an Airbus "fact" based on an E or H1 model C-130, not on the J.>so to regard the A400M as a competitor to a fifty year old>design tha flies lower, slower, with less payload while using>more fuel per cargo mile is a little unrealistic. The J will take a 75,000 lb payload to FL350 and burn 2400 lbs per hour total fuel flow at cruise. Not your Daddy's C-130.>it is a new product designed to meet the new challenges of the>new era. As is the C-130J.>The Herc has served magnificently, just like the DC-3>before it, but it's operating limits will increasingly limit>its usefulness in the coming decades, before age renders it>obsolete. What are a J model's operating limits in comparison to an A400M? Comparing an old E/H to the 400M isn't a fair comparison.>The C-17 is a different category of airlifter again,but is>actally closer in overall performance to the A400M than either>are to the C130. Again, not true when you compare to a J rather than an old E/H.>If they are closing the C17 production lines,>then the only market alternatives are the A400M or one of the>Russian airlifters, and I can see that the Russian aircraft>might be politically unacceptable, so what choice does it>leave?There are very few other countries with need for a long-range heavy-lift airlifter like the C-17. It's overkill. Australia and the UK will or do have the C-17...but it's in the realm of the superpowers to operate a global fleet of aircraft like the C-17...the rest can't generate enough use to justify the capability.Anyway, what the A-400M will or won't be able to do is still yet to be demonstrated. We saw this overconfident overbilling of undelivered capability with the Eurofighter too, if you will recall, and by the time the EF finally rolled off the lines it was already eclipsed in capability by the F-16 Block 40 and beyond, as well as the F-15C.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

"Not really `descending`, just trying to stop bigotry and over-zealous nationalistic ideology from clouding rational, reasoned judgement."I was talking about the thread in general :).

Share this post


Link to post

>when the M16 was introduced in Vietnam it had horrible>reliability, now it is the number one weapon of choiceReally? For who? Besides the U.S., I can't name too many countries who use this weapon at all, never mind ones that are still ordering it. Canada bought the M-16 (with Canadian modifications) 20-odd years ago, and several other countries like Thailand are still using Vietnam-era M16s, but hardly anyone else is. The Colt website lists more than 90 countries that use it, but most of these only use the M4 Carbine in very limited numbers for CQB.Colt claims to have made around 8,000,000 M16's and variants, which really doesn't compare to the estimated 100,000,000 AK47's floating around. As for the original poster: yes, I'm sure there's always plenty of political pressure to buy home-built armaments, but occaisionally, US manufacturers don't have an adequate competing product. Also, sometimes you have to go abroad to find competitors to make sure the locals are playing fair. This seems to be the case in the upcoming tanker-lease-deal, where Airbus is competing with Boeing. If Airbus weren't allowed to compete, what would stop Boeing from ripping off the government, which they already got caught doing, BTW, with the original tanker deal.Finally, even when the US buys a weapon system from another country, there is still plenty of work which can be done at home. Assembly, outfitting, electronics, whatever can all still be contracted out at home.- Martin

Share this post


Link to post

>>Anyway, what the A-400M will or won't be able to do is still>yet to be demonstrated. We saw this overconfident overbilling>of undelivered capability with the Eurofighter too, if you>will recall, and by the time the EF finally rolled off the>lines it was already eclipsed in capability by the F-16 Block>40 and beyond, as well as the F-15C.>>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300>Santiago de Chile>That's a bit harsh on the Eurofighter, which is very capable, and would have been much more so but for the Germans wanting it cheaper and therefore cutting some of it's capabilities. Even the F16 is obsolete compared to some of what's coming out of the Former Soviet Union now.

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking about the m-16s first used in Vietnam by the US. the weapon had a ton of problems during its first few runs

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this