Thread: Does the A400M fill a role between the C-130 and C-17?

For Germany at least 60% since every single aircraft has sales tax included on the bill.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, if one goes back to square one & considers the design requirements of the C-17, you get both it's size & it's mission. Bottom of the line is that Most countries in the world that need some sort of heavy lift to fulfil international obligations don't need a C-17 to fulfil that requirement. Britains, Canada's, Australias needs were driven by very specific needs at short notice.

I would never trust an article sourced from Boeing (or for that matter from Airbus). The bottom of the line is often a red herring in logistics terms according to freight rates heading out of Dover. If a LOT of freight needs to be cleared, then the C5 gets the gong, if otherwise it's just another flight in the huge budget that airlift gets. RoRo is also over ranked as soon as operations become sustained in many areas. The USAF uses rented 747's in peak time at enormous cost and doesn't give a damn. The C-5 can make most flights & carry more on minimal refuelling requirements. The C-17 has atrocious economies of scale when it comes to shifting pallets. Something an A-330 can do more of, using less fuel, carrying more passengers etc (something to consider for KC-X perhaps)

Take into account that the reality is that Tactical Airlifters are hardly ever used to carry Armoured Fighting Vehecles (and when they do it's certainly not worth buying airlifters for them unless you have the type of commitments ABCA countries have in relation to their location) let alone specifically for that role.

The A-400 has every bit of a design requirement that the C-17 did. But in Airlift, the problem of designing around Tactical airlift is that the same thing that makes them good at what they do makes them bad.

Compare a C-17 to the capability of an A-330F.
C-17 Tonnage - 77.5 Tonne / 18 Pallets
Range 4,482 km (presuming at that tonnage)
Cost $200m.

A-330F - 475 cubic metres/69 Tonnes/23 Pallets
Range @ 64 Tonnes/7400km
Cost $180.6m - $187.7m

To get a loaded C-17 to the ghan, as at 2009 cost around 235 Grand. To get the same load by sea & land is around 60G.

Take into account that transporting IFV's into theatre is not actual reality in many users perspectives, and combined with this article Widening air bridge to Afghanistan no easy feat - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times you can see that it's an apples and oranges when it comes to airlift.

In short, and to make it to the point, if you thought buying an A-400 was a ripoff, consider the operating costs of the C-17 against a non Ro/Ro, non tac aircraft (Whether the alternative can actually do the job) - and whether the cost trade off with the A-400 is made up for in pure operating costs & unsage. Consider how AMC actually uses the Aircraft as Strategic or Intra Theatre and whether that is reflective of what the aircraft is good at, bad at, or both (logistics support/sustainment of the airbridge)- and consider whether Countries in EU budgets, given their airlift structure and the realities of that in their fleet structure & budget.

Consider that Boeing has proposed as C-17 FE & Lockheed a C-130 XL.

Plenty to chew upon.

I don't see the types of countries that have bought the C-17 buying an A-400 because of their particular realities as much as the UK has committed to it because of it's own reality.