RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 20 Posted (3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3196 times:
More orders for C-17's may be on the horizon, but the USAF doesn't think the B version will be needed anytime soon.
Quote: WASHINGTON -- The four-star general in charge of the Air Force's cargo fleet said Wednesday that he saw no need for a new version of the hulking C-17 cargo aircraft being proposed by Boeing Co. as a way to extend the life of Southern California's last major airplane factory.
But Gen. Arthur J. Lichte said additional demands being placed on the Air Force, including the creation of a new African command and an increase in the size of the Army, could lead him to seek additional orders of the current C-17.
Interesting that given the commonality between the two variants they wouldn't at least order a few B versions just to have the additional capability. I think this might also just stick a fork in the idea that the A400M might be on the horizon for the USAF. It appears they want to stick primarily with the C-130s and C-17s.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3114 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter): I think this might also just stick a fork in the idea that the A400M might be on the horizon for the USAF. It appears they want to stick primarily with the C-130s and C-17s.
Can you imagine the carnage if the USAF were to choose the A400M over 2 very good domestic manufacturers! It will not happen and EADS knows it.
Everyone does realize that Boeing's antics on the tanker is as much about keeping a EADS production line out of the US as it is about keeping the 767 line going.
Seefivein From United States, joined Apr 2006, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 22 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1): Can you imagine the carnage if the USAF were to choose the A400M over 2 very good domestic manufacturers! It will not happen and EADS knows it.
Everyone does realize that Boeing's antics on the tanker is as much about keeping a EADS production line out of the US as it is about keeping the 767 line going.
I think that there is too much of this kind of talk about all the planes needed now to try and change the way the outcome of the elections...
Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter): I think this might also just stick a fork in the idea that the A400M might be on the horizon for the USAF. It appears they want to stick primarily with the C-130s and C-17s.
The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.
Anyone who is (again) convinced EADS / A400M makes no change is going to be surprized/ chocked (again).
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 months 21 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.
Anyone who is (again) convinced EADS / A400M makes no change is going to be surprized/ chocked (again).
First of the USAF has 2 airplanes (one strategic and one tactical) that can do a 30t lift with lift capacity left over. It will never happen. Once you appreciate the political environment in the United States, you will not be making such comments.
Before you say the C-17 cannot do a combat landing on a beach, I will point out that no one is going to land an unarmed cargo aircraft in a combat zone unless that is the only way to deliver goods. (Even Khe Sanh had a runway.) Improvements in material drop equipment and procedures is making most combat cargo landings unnecessary.
This isn't the tanker competition where there needs to be an additional bidder to Boeing. If asked, both Boeing and Lockheed would respond with an aircraft that meets any specifications laid down by the DoD. Right now they have the aircraft they want - C-5, C-17 and C-130 and soon the C-27.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (3 months 21 hours ago) and read 2947 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.
The C-17 can fit the bill for any potential US Army requirements that's outside of the C-130. Why should the USAF introduce an entirely new type into its fleet, along with the additional expense for training and maintenance, just to handle certain US Army requirements when other aircraft in its inventory (or versions of those models) can already handle such a requirement?
I'm not about to say the USAF will never buy an A400M (as you rightly point out, we saw what happened with that argument on the KC-X). However, the situation in this instance is a little different from the KC-X standpoint. Specifically, the lift capability for the Army already exists in current and very new and modern models. Perhaps it's not "right-sized" for the mission (e.g., excess lift capacity per airframe for the Army's needs), but then that doesn't seem to bother military planners when it comes to other strategic or tactical capabilities as is readily apparent with the selection of the KC-30.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
For weight, price & direct operating costs you are looking at a similar comparisons.
Saying the C-17 can fit anything bigger then a C130 is true, but maybe also a gross simplification assuming a world of unlimited resources.
The KC30 carries about 25% more fuel the the KC767. Not 4 times as much.
I think there is a "niche" between C130 and C17. A 60t niche.. Why was the C27 ordered while the C130J can do at least everything the C27 can?
IMO a smart solution could be for Lockheed to strike a deal with EADS to license build the A400M under their name, with customized engines / systems etc in the USA. Not assembling but building from the ground up. The USAF will look for practicle options to replace C130 with something able to meet the new requirements and A400M specs will be hard to avoid.
Lowrider From United States, joined Jun 2004, 2078 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (3 months 17 hours ago) and read 2803 times:
The US Army does not need an aircraft for every mission. The niche that the A400M would fill is currently being filled by 747's DC10's, 767's, and DC8's. They just happen to say Evergreen, World, Kalitta, ATI, Capitol, and Southern on the side. (Apologies to any carrier I might have missed). The only thing these carriers can't do is make drops or combat landings. For the few times these are necessary, it is probably more cost effective to use what is on hand, even if it might be a bit of overkill. I would like to see what Lockheed could come up with to replace the C5 though...
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." -Final words of Gen. John Sedgewick 1864
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 2878 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 months 15 hours ago) and read 2732 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8): IMO a smart solution could be for Lockheed to strike a deal with EADS to license build the A400M under their name, with customized engines / systems etc in the USA. Not assembling but building from the ground up. The USAF will look for practicle options to replace C130 with something able to meet the new requirements and A400M specs will be hard to avoid.
Well I'm sure there are other countries that might be interested in purchasing an A400/L400... my own for one.... the RNZAF has an ageing (albeit upgraded along the way) fleet of C-130H. The NZL Army has a fleet of LAV3 APC that whilst they can fit in a C-130H, the aircraft isn't able to fly them very far. An aircraft able to carry larger items and an extra 15t+ would be ideal within 10 years. I'm just not sure they are keen to go the EADS way on this (although they did order new helicopters from them).
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 20 Reply 15, posted (3 months 14 hours ago) and read 2714 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.
The Stryker, which is what I assume you're referring to, can fit into a C-130 and in fact has been flown many times on a C-130. The issue with regards to size as it relates to the C-130 seems to be related to the fact that the clearances within the fuselage are smaller than typical USAF operating requirements. That does not, however, seem to be a hindrance to flying them on C-130s. The Army may want a bigger fuselage with a 30t capability, but that only points to the need to fly the LAVs in more than a 1:1 sortie ratio.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8): Saying the C-17 can fit anything bigger then a C130 is true, but maybe also a gross simplification assuming a world of unlimited resources.
The KC30 carries about 25% more fuel the the KC767. Not 4 times as much.
Well, using the specs for all three airframes (130, 400M, 17), the C-130 can carry 1 Stryker LAV. The A400M can carry 2 Stryker LAVs. The C-17 can carry 6 Stryker LAVs (that's also taking into consideration internal cargo bay space). If the Army needs LAVs deployed, I have no doubt they're going to want to do it as quickly as possible and the USAF will want to do it as efficiently as possible. Seems to me, it makes more sense to fly 6 LAVs per sortie rather than just 2, or even 1 at a time.
HOWEVER, and despite the above, I don't really dispute anything you're saying, Keesje (now isn't that a novelty!). There is a gap between the C-130 and the C-17 and the A400M currently is the only offering that would fit nicely in there. But it doesn't appear that the gap is critical and needs to be urgently filled (unlike the scenario playing out on the KC-X side). In addition, and unlike the tanker competition which relies on commercial off-the-shelf products, combat lift capability is a uniquely military specification. Therefore, IMO, if the USAF ever decides to fill that lift gap, they will have the luxury of allowing different manufacturers to come up with an all-new design specific to the task at hand. And in that case, if and when that were to happen, the A400M might just be the old girl that is getting long in the tooth. Her design is already a decade old and, I might add, not even proven as of yet given all the issues with her powerplants (not to mention the fact that she hasn't even flown yet). Assuming the A400M would be a perfect fit for that lift capability gap, it might be too much of a stretch at this point to assume she would be a shoe-in.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
UH60FtRucker From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2005, 2645 posts, RR: 71 Reply 16, posted (3 months 8 hours ago) and read 2610 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16): The Stryker, which is what I assume you're referring to
Nope.
He's referring to Army FCS: Army Future Combat Systems.
The program encompasses an entire fleet of 14 different combat vehicles, all of which will completely overhaul our land component equipment inventory.
The Army originally attempted to fit the perimeters of FCS platforms into being C-130 transportable, but has recently abandoned that goal. Reason being: you have to sacrifice too much to meet the weight goals.
The XM1203 NLOS-C has already begun initial evaluations, and will continue to undergo evaluations at the Yuma Proving Grounds, throughout '09-'10. It will NOT be C-130 transportable.
So we're designing a complex integration of multiple combat vehicles - all designed to work together to act as a force multiplier - and we cannot even deploy them on a C-130. The Army asked the Air Force what the likelihood of an aircraft between the C-130 and C-17, being field, and they were told "highly unlikely."
...So the Army was faced with sacrificing armor, equipment, and ammunition to meet the weight goals, or scrapping the program, or going ahead with the program and trying to force the Air Force into fielding the aircraft they needed.
What's more reasonable - junking a major land warfare modernization project, or filling the gap a 50yr old aircraft is leaving us?
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2569 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 months 7 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16): What's more reasonable - junking a major land warfare modernization project, or filling the gap a 50yr old aircraft is leaving us?
So, what about that gap? Are there going to be lots of FCS deployment scenarios where deploying 2 is "just right" whereas deploying 3-6 is overkill? Is it worth investing in a unique airplane for this specific role? Will there be money available for such an airplane?
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 19, posted (3 months 6 hours ago) and read 2544 times:
[quote=Lowrider,reply=10]The US Army does not need an aircraft for every mission. The niche that the A400M would fill is currently being filled by 747's DC10's, 767's, and DC8's. They just happen to say Evergreen, World, Kalitta, ATI
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3188 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 3542 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 2878 posts, 
From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2005, 2645 posts, 