Airbus A400M in US colors...

[Guest IanP]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Bob Scott 7,721]

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

[Bob Scott 7,721]

>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

[Bob Scott 7,721]

>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

[Bob Scott 7,721]

>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

[MD83 1]

"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 :).

[Shaka 2]

>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

[Guest jboweruk]

>>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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest IanP]

Many forces use the M16 - not necessarily large national forces with their own armaments industries, but the M16 is definately in use with many smaller countries. AK47/74 derivatives are the most common personal weapons on the planet by a long way, but the M16 isprobably next most popular, because America gave so many away to pretty much anyone who might want to shoot at a Russian. Strap an M203 URGL on and they are also used by the British SAS and Australian SAS, along with many others.The M16A1 was an abysmal weapon. The plastic broke, the magazines didn't feed properly and ejected rounds didn't, jamming in the breech. It was so bad it could almost have been the L85A1/SA-80! The jamming problems were resolved by the end of the Vietnam war, as were those on the M60 machine gun and M61 cannon. Strangely, it took two desert wars to prove to the British Government that L85 was faulty and needed work as well.Ian P.

[Guest IanP]

I dunno, the British Government had a go as well - the RAF were supposed to be removing the guns and are still derating the engines to extend service life.F16 and F15 are both seriously out of date now. Hornet E/F on the other hand has become a piece of kit to be taken very seriously indeed - and it operates off a carrier. ;-)Ian P.

[Guest BryUK]

Well, I have to admit your comments about the Eurofighter has reduced your credibility to me. The Eurofighter has been far from overbilled, infact the press has given that program a hard time from the very start.No matter how you want to dress it up, the F-15C has nothing on the Typhoon. The Eurofighter does beat it in capability, systems and performance. And that's not all hype either. The RN Sea Harriers would regularly scrap with F-15's and the win-loss ratio was fairly even between them. I needn't explain just how much the Typhoon outclasses the SHAR.As for the F-16, depends. At the moment, the Typhoon has the aerial advantage on paper, especially in BVR, but it is not an effective bomber yet. That capability will be in the Tranche 2 and definitive Tranche 3 varients. But the proof is in the pudding and so far, the in-service Eurofighters have been performing inline with or exceeding expectations. Saudi Arabia was a firm F-15 operator but have ordered the Tranche 2 Typhoon to replace them.

[Guest BryUK]

All military fighter aircraft have the engines derated in peace time. The engines are 'uprated' to what is referred to as 'war power' only when needed as it does reduce the engines life. And ofcourse, these days major campaigns are expected to be over within a month or two.The MOD wanted to remove the gun, but it ruined the aircraft balance meaning the flight control software would need to be modified. That would make removing the gun more expensive than leaving it, so they have the guns, just no bullets. The actual crews though have made it clear that if need be, they will take ammo from the Tornado fleet for use in the Typhoon as its the same cannon.

[Guest IanP]

>Because the USAF's leadership determined that we have enough>to do the job.Because the USAF's budget is under severe pressure, the same as everything else.C-17 has been scaled back, F-22 has been scaled back, Osprey has been scaled back, JSF has been scaled back, Herc J has been scaled back and the KC10/KC135 replacement is very likely to be leased rather than purchased outright regardless of whether it ends up being an Airbus, Boeing or Ilyushin developed package.If you look at the Navy, Army, National Guard, Coast Guard and everything else, you'll see the same story. You'll see the same story around the world, wherever politicians setting budgets are even vaguely accountable to the people who pay for them.Governments are having to spend less or tax more and the people don't like being taxed more. It affects the military as badly - if not more badly - than any other Government funded entity. Which is why you are still highly likely to see Airbus aircraft in USAF liveries if the cost to obtain and operate is less than the US built equivalent.Ian P.