Wow. This via the BBC.
"The Americans are interested," he told BBC News. "They do not have an aircraft with the same capabilities."This guy is getting some of the "good stuff"...I mean it must be Columbia Pure.
Mr Gallois said he did not expect the US to order the plane immediately.
However, by the middle of the decade the US will need to replace their existing planes, he explained.
By then the A400M programme - which is several billion euros over budget and four years late - should be running smoothly.
"The programme is now on schedule," Mr Gallois said.
Or else he's just plain crazy.
Either way, I can't believe that anyone in his sales department is telling him that the A400 will be considered by the US military in the future.
Talk about capabilities and cost? For a few million dollars more you can buy a C-17 with almost double the lift and speed. I've never seen a company chairman grasping at straws...before now that is...and to be honest its not a pleasant sight.
How any reporter can credibly report this drivel is beyond me but it is fun watching this train wreck better known as Gallois.
God loves a trier
ReplyDeleteI don't think it makes a lot of sense for the US but you never know!
Don't compare it with a C17 though, it sits in the space between a C130 and C17, more like a better tactical airlifter than a C130 but with a light sprinkling of strategic capability as offered by the C17
The funny thing is that EADS disparages the C-130J for being 'too small' but so is the A400m.
ReplyDeleteThe new IED threat has forced armored vehicles to carry so much armour that only a C-17 or bigger aircraft can actually carry them these days...
The A400m is neither fish nor fowl and whilst it can carry plenty more than the C-130 J it can only do so at greatly inflated cost and greatly protracted procurement timelines, but will forever lack the capability of a proper Strategic airlifter and will still leave an airlift gap to be covered by a proper airlifted...
Grasping at straws alright. My advice would be to forget the USA and concentrate on your launch customers. You've already lost one and others are reducing planned buys at a remarkable rate...
sorry ThinkDefence i just don't buy it. EADS is attempting to call this airplane a jack of all trades. not only is it suppose to be a tactical airlifter but also a strategic one.
ReplyDeletethe sad truth is this. the C-130 is about as big as you can get for a tactical airlifter. the A400 is strategic in nature and in that light it pales when compared to the C-17, the AN-70 and other airplanes.
in the tactical role its not as nimble as the C-130 into tight airfields and will face serious competition from the Japanese and Brazilian offerings.
EADS simply screwed the pooch by being late to the party. the big budgets for defense are gone, protectionism is back and the desire to purchase foreign airplanes is diminished.
add to all that the desire by all nations to support their aviation industry and you have EADS in a world of hurt. the EU will never support their military industry the way that the US does...prediction? in 5 years EADS military will be a memory.
i think Aussie Digger nailed it.
ReplyDeletenot to kiss up to the Aussies but i like what they're doing. while i'm not a fan of the NH-90, the purchase of the F-18, the Tiger attack helicopter, the M-1, M-88, the future purchase of the Canberra class LHD all seem to make more sense than many of the moves i've seen here in the states or in Europe.
despite the critics they might have the most innovative MoD in the free world.
The A400 was designed to replace the C130 and C160 and also provide limited strategic capability into Africa and the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteIt is categorically not designed to compete with the C17, this is the fundamental mistake people often make when discussing the A400.
The design is a result of a very careful study by the partner nations, not EADS, that looked at future ground programmes like the German Puma or UK FRES for example and the world and his dog going down the medium weight FCS pipe dream. Now normally, having nailed their colours to the medium weight FCS/FRES argument it would have been coming into service when the FRES.FCS had left the building, pretty embarrassing.
Riding over the horizon though is MRAP and the overwhelming and irrefutable trend towards heavier AND larger vehicles and plant.
This leaves a niche for a tactical aircraft that can shift more than the C130 in terms of weight and volume that the A400 fits quite neatly.
Now I know C17 can slum it in the dirt but the running costs of C17 are eye watering, especially if it is used in the dirt. The runway length and ground pressure of the C17 mean that options are limited in that respect as well.
The A400 is expressly designed to have better repeatable soft field performance than the C130, have you seen the size of the undercarriage sponsons, they are massive. If you look at the dimensions and compare it with C130J its not actually that much bigger.
Yes, the A400 is late and over budget but if you compare that with other programmes, the C17 or C13J for example, it looks like th every model of rapid and economic development.
As for the Brazilian 390, Indian/Russian prgramme, AN70 and the Japanese CX I would say this.
The first two are not in the same class, more C27/lower end C130.
The AN70 will be bought by people, if it ever actually gets into service which I doubt, who buy Russian equipment and therefore not likely to but Western.
The Japanese one will be bought by nobody because they cannot and do not export military equipment.
I think the CEO was just talking things up, thats what he is supposed to do, there is very little chance of the A400 ever appearing in US colours.
There are compelling reasons for the A400 for the launch nations from a capability, industrial and political perspective.
Whether this translates into export sales is entirely another thing but as you say, the big budgets are a thing of the past so nations will be seeking to maximise investment and reducing the types in service.
The UK for example, will realise substantial cost benefits by going for a C17/A400 mix and getting rid of the C130.
come on guy!!!!
ReplyDeleteyou know better than that! the Puma in its max armor configuration will overload the A400. the US Army's Ground Combat Vehicle will do the same....as will the re-engineered Stryker!
there is no market for this so called medium weight airlifter. its either the C-17 or a ship. if its smaller gear then the C-130 is more than adequate.
operating costs for the C-130 are far more attractive than those of the A400. oh and how is the AN-70 more a competitor of the C-130 than the A400 is?
i can understand European protectionism...it makes sense and although i think that the A400 is a piece of 'kit' without a purpose, if the UK wants to buy it then awesome....
MY CONCERN IS HIS STUPIDITY IN THINKING THAT THE US will buy that flying piece of ......
NO WAY!
The German spec wanted 3 A400's to carry 2 Pumas plus armour kits for the two vehicles in the third aircraft, which it does.
ReplyDeleteThe spec for the A400 is 37 tonnes but normal max load would be 32 tonnes, not sure what the actual aircraft will achieve as opposed to the spec, have to wait and see for that.
What is the weight of the upgraded Stryker
I agree that it is very very unlikely to ever see US service though but as I said in my first comment, God loves a trier!
Thinkdefence,
ReplyDeleteA400m has come in massively over-weight. It has lost the significant edge it had over the C-130J in terms of carrying vehicles such as Puma, to a large degree.
A C-130J still can't carry them, but neither can an A400m over any meaningful distance.
hence the Euro-consortium purchase of C-17 capability. It's the only way European Countries will be deploying modern armour, apart from continued Antonov leasing and paying for spare US and UK capacity...
Either a reduced payload or redesign of certain components. It is also likely that extra performance will be obtained out of the engines and balancing the it.
ReplyDeleteThe Euro Consortium bought the C17 because there is nothing else to beat the C17 in its performance envelope but I would add that none of the participating nations are in the A400 programme
Much like those claiming one thing or another about the F35 people also do the same about the A400. It is in early development and the final performance is not yet clear but I agree, it needs to achieve its key user requirement of 32 tonne payload at roughly 4000nm.
Max payload is not the only thing that is important though, volume is also very important and some might argue more important that payload in the majority of missions
Will be interesting to see how it pans out