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

**JA Boomer** · 20 Aug 10, 07:45

I just wanted to get some WAB'ers opinion on this subject. Airbus has been saying that the A400M fills a niche role in the airlift community between the tactical airlift C-130 and the strategic airlift C-17. And .. they're right, there's really no other aircraft out there that can fill this role. The Kawasaki C-2, Embraer C-390, and An-70 are in the same region, but the A400M is perhaps the most attractive option (but that's debatable).

The question I pose to you: is it an aircraft made to fill a niche hole in airlifting capabilities or can the C-130 perform tactical airlift missions and the C-17 strategic missions better than the hybrid A400M can try and do both?

What this really comes down to in my opinion is the higher end of the tactical airlift spectrum. Can a C-130J-30 carry a Stryker or a MRAP. I've talked to USAF aircrews who've told me no problem, but I've also talked with aircrew who said no way. I spoke with a loadmaster from a California Air Guard unit last week who said you would have to take most of the equipment off a Stryker (especially on top of the vehicle) to try and get it to squeeze inside, which kind of defeats to point of rapid tactical mobility.

Any thoughts?

Name: Airbus_a400m_c130j-c-17_raf.jpg
Views: 7002
Size: 40.2 KB

Name: Airbus_a400m_c130j-c-17_raf.jpg
Views: 7002
Size: 40.2 KB

**ASIMOV52** · 20 Aug 10, 17:58

JA:

The short answer is "No".

However, an appropriate response to your query requires a systemic and holistic understanding of the forces at work here attempting to address current and future airlift requirements mandated by the reality of concomitant asymmetric and conventional warfare --coupled with an uptick in humanitarian/disaster relief missions -- scenarios. Scenarios that dictate signifcant airlift projection, to quote a DoD colleague, "Anywhere in an hour".

The following excerpt from a June release ( Boeing Analysis: Updated 6/01/10 Congress Approves Sale of 10+ C-17s to India (Indian Air Force IAF Pending Order...Not at Risk; US DoD Actions Imply Non-Boeing Future) ) may be of some relevance to this discussion:

"Most importantly, C-17 has proven on a continuing basis it is the ideal, if not perfect, airlift platform for addressing the potential of conventional and asymmetric warfare existing concomitantly, along with an observable increase in the frequency of disaster/humanitarian relief scenarios (think Haiti, Chile and Katrina). This reality, according to military strategists, dictates need for an ability to rapidly project significant force in a way that acknowledges the comfortable bi-polarity of the Cold War has been replaced by the dangers and unpredictability of a militarily/economically emergent China, a nuclear armed Iran, the traditional uncertainties associated with North Korea's belligerence and terrorist organizations possessed of global reach.

A World Being Made Safe For Retrofitted C-5s, C130Js and Airbus A400Ms?

"Stokes further says Global HeavyLift will continue in its firm belief that the non-stop and intense efforts to kill Boeing C-17 are directly the result of a desire by involved parties to ensure retrofit all remaining C-5s, advance the cause of C-5M, and introduce the yet-to-be-operational Airbus/EADS A400M 37 tonne capacity (now 25 tonnes due to its currently being 12 tonnes overweight) turboprop tactical airlifter into USAF inventories, an assertion confirmed by Airbus Military's publicly stated desire this year to sell 200 A400Ms to the USAF.

"As regards the clamoring for new purchases of the C-130J, the current iteration of a 50 year-old design, let's not forget that Airbus has offered to the airforces of the world since 2006 a buyback of new variant Hercules aircraft ordered, to be exchanged for A400M when available. I suspect a similar offer has been made to the USAF, thus explaining the current push to acquire tactical transport aircraft of a type flown and serviced by the grandfather's, even great-grandfathers, of current pilots and crew", Stokes said.

"It is not a stretch to say all three aspirations require the demise of C-17, and perhaps, Boeing itself. Moreover, it is quite telling that Secretary Gates, despite his constant statements of the need to reduce costs and that sufficient airlift capacity existed for 'any contingency', did not swiftly and utterly dismiss the Airbus objectives as moot. To be sure, South Africa's cancellation of A400M due to per aircraft cost escalations, which according to their calculations, exceeded C-17, should give everyone pause, including the Pentagon," he said.

We trust this will be of some assistance in terms of, hopefully, bringing much needed clarification to this matter.

Thank you for your insights.

Myron D. Stokes
Managing Member
Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC
Defense Logistics Agency listed (www.ccr.gov)
eMOTION! REPORTS.com
eMOTION!REPORTS.com Publisher's Blog
CAMAA Encyclopedic Narrative Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft : Reference (The Full Wiki)

**Skywatcher** · 20 Aug 10, 19:47

Frankly, the A400M is too much money for its capabilities.

**JA Boomer** · 20 Aug 10, 21:08

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Frankly, the A400M is too much money for its capabilities.

I agree with you there. But take the UK for example, why are they aquiring the A400M when they operate a fleet of C-130J and C-17A? The C-130 will perform tactical missions better than the A400M and the C-17 will perform strategic lift better than the A400M.

The only advantage the A400M brings is being able to transport large vehicles (Stryker and MRAP size/weight) in a tactical role where the C-17 becomes overkill. No one has even said for sure that the C-130 is incapable of performing this mission anyways, as I've seen a Stryker driven into a C-130 .. granted it was a tight, tight squeeze. Is it worth adding an additional airframe into service for this limited beneift?

**Skywatcher** · 20 Aug 10, 23:24

The only reasons for buying the A400M seem to be for political reasons. The whole thing has become a jobs program.

**LGB** · 28 Aug 10, 09:42

The A400M is too big for most in theater missions and too small for strategic missions. It's not a strategic airlifter. The ability to carry a given armored vehicle is illusionary. Armored units are deployed and supplied by sealift and rail not by air.

If you operate an A400M you also need a smaller in theater transport. Indeed witness the US Army not getting enough C-130 sorties and seeking to procure C-27J. For strategic lift the A400M is still going to require additional sorties by larger aircraft (C-17, leased An-124's).

It will be extremely interesting to see the RAF operate all 3 aircraft and reach conclusions about comparative operational effectiveness.

The A400M originally was a C-160 replacement. It's simply too large for that and far too costly. Is it going to cost twice or three times a C-130J? Will it end up costing about as much as an C-17. The C-17 carries twice the cargo faster and farther. For the A400M to make sense it needs to cost significantly less than a C-17. Indeed a mix of C-130J's and C-17 would seem far more cost effective than A400M and whatever other aircraft one would also require- just ask Canada. South Africa canceled it's order last year noting sharply rising costs. An C-130 replacement that costs two to three times a C-130 seems to be a problem. At this point it simply is being kept alive for political reasons. Airbus admits it's going to lose billions on the program.

**~~KRON1~~** · 28 Aug 10, 11:03

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

The question I pose to you: is it an aircraft made to fill a niche hole in airlifting capabilities or can the C-130 perform tactical airlift missions and the C-17 strategic missions better than the hybrid A400M can try and do both?

Any thoughts?

The Europeans seem to think so. They are retiring their Transals and C-130s to buy it and forgoing purchasing C-17s. It is an intermediate option that fills many roles. You can either haul a light load in a strategic lift, or a heavy load in a tactical lift. Props are cheaper to operate than turbofans which is attractive. The price of one C-17 is equal to several A400Ms, so that is attractive when you need numbers. Operating one type is also cheaper.

**kato** · 28 Aug 10, 16:42

Don't forget that the only country that will operate A400M alongside C-17 will be the UK - and they're buying rather small numbers in comparison anyway. For Germany, France and Spain, which together are buying six times as many A400M, these will be the only large mover in operation, with strategic-level transport falling to leased An-124 and Il-76MF.

The only thing you really need C-17 and An-124 for is tanks. The A400M simply fills the niche of being able to transport armoured vehicles other than tanks, something you'd otherwise need one of the above two aircraft for. And it fills the niche of transporting C-130 loads over strategic ranges.

Originally Posted by LGB

Armored units are deployed and supplied by sealift and rail not by air.

Most heavy armored vehicles for Afghanistan were moved by airlift on C-17A, An-124 and Il-76MF.

**LGB** · 30 Aug 10, 06:30

It might be worth noting I referred to armored units not armored vehicles. However, A400M is not going to carry modern SPH, combat engineer vehicles, tank recovery vehicles, etc., beyond just tanks. Even new IFV's must be carried without the extra armor. Moreover, even carrying the armored vehicles it can manage reduces range significantly and it's not like most European nations have any depth of air to air refueling assets.

You mention below the A400M strategically will be supplemented by leased heavy aircraft. Might one then wonder why not buy the proper aircraft in the first place? The C-17 is not a "niche" aircraft compared to the A400M but quite the reverse. The C-17 is an everyday strategic aircraft with the C-5 or An-124 being the heavy lifters. The A400M occupies a brand new class of aircraft in between the C-130 and C-17. That's as niche as one can get.

The fact that the A400M costs almost as much as a C-17 and two to three times a C-130J should demonstrate clearly how useful it's going to be in that niche role. Canada bought C-17 instead and South Africa has canceled it's order. Exactly how France and Germany went from a C-160 replacement program to something like A400M eludes me. Europe would have been better off with Germany partnering up with the An-70 twenty years ago and Europe producing a direct competitor to the C-130 both because such an aircraft is needed and would generate far more export sales. We'll all wait and see how many A400M's are sold over the next twenty years.

Originally Posted by kato

Don't forget that the only country that will operate A400M alongside C-17 will be the UK - and they're buying rather small numbers in comparison anyway. For Germany, France and Spain, which together are buying six times as many A400M, these will be the only large mover in operation, with strategic-level transport falling to leased An-124 and Il-76MF.

The only thing you really need C-17 and An-124 for is tanks. The A400M simply fills the niche of being able to transport armoured vehicles other than tanks, something you'd otherwise need one of the above two aircraft for. And it fills the niche of transporting C-130 loads over strategic ranges.

Most heavy armored vehicles for Afghanistan were moved by airlift on C-17A, An-124 and Il-76MF.

**kato** · 01 Sep 10, 17:18

Originally Posted by LGB

it's not like most European nations have any depth of air to air refueling assets.

Those that are buying it have refuelling assets (KC-135 and A310/A330 MRTT).

Originally Posted by LGB

Might one then wonder why not buy the proper aircraft in the first place?

Why would you buy an aircraft (C-5 or An-124 in this case) if you're only gonna use it once or twice per year? The USA, regarding strategic transport, is not comparable as they have the Atlantic and Pacific as major hindrances. If we'd want to move a battalion of tanks to Afghanistan, we'd just clear it with our "strategic partner" and use trains. Or we would put them on a ship, like everyone else. No one seriously shuttles around tanks in any large amounts by aircraft.

Originally Posted by LGB

Exactly how France and Germany went from a C-160 replacement program to something like A400M eludes me.

Simple, France now uses vehicles that weigh twice as much (or are built to fit twice as many into an A400M), while Germany is just getting started on strategic expeditionary posturing.

Originally Posted by LGB

Europe would have been better off with Germany partnering up with the An-70 twenty years ago

Politically impossible. Both 20 years ago and now.

**JA Boomer** · 03 Sep 10, 18:43

Originally Posted by KRON1

The Europeans seem to think so. They are retiring their Transals and C-130s to buy it and forgoing purchasing C-17s. It is an intermediate option that fills many roles. You can either haul a light load in a strategic lift, or a heavy load in a tactical lift. Props are cheaper to operate than turbofans which is attractive. The price of one C-17 is equal to several A400Ms, so that is attractive when you need numbers. Operating one type is also cheaper.

The figures I see most often thrown around is that a A400M costs twice as much as a C-130J, and a C-17A costs twice as much as a A400M.

So for the price of 20 A400M, you can buy 20 C-130J and 5 C-17A. Which would you rather have? The C-17A's are going to perform the strategic mission better then the A400M, and the C-130J's are going to be better at tactical missions. It just seems like a waste of money and a plane that fills a capability that no one really needs.

The only new capability the A400M offers is the tactical airlift of a heavy vehicle (Stryker or MRAP). That being said, the C-130J has proven it can perform these missions, it's just not ideal.

**LGB** · 04 Sep 10, 06:23

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

The figures I see most often thrown around is that a A400M costs twice as much as a C-130J, and a C-17A costs twice as much as a A400M.

So for the price of 20 A400M, you can buy 20 C-130J and 5 C-17A. Which would you rather have? The C-17A's are going to perform the strategic mission better then the A400M, and the C-130J's are going to be better at tactical missions. It just seems like a waste of money and a plane that fills a capability that no one really needs.

The only new capability the A400M offers is the tactical airlift of a heavy vehicle (Stryker or MRAP). That being said, the C-130J has proven it can perform these missions, it's just not ideal.

The numbers are even worse. An A400M costs nearly the same as a C-17 and closer to 2 1/2 to 3 times a C-130J. Moreover, the numbers are just projections and includes Airbus losing billions. What an A400M really costs is a matter of debate. South Africa seemed to think the costs rose enough to cancel the whole thing and Canada chose to go with C-130's and C-17's instead of A400M's.

**Officer of Engineers** · 04 Sep 10, 07:33

Politics. The original Canadian agreement with the A400 was that we would pay for 20% of a 5 plane project provided that we get 20% usage. Only thing was that no one can agree to what that 20% was. As far as Canada was concerned, we would be stuck with the 20% we don't actuslly need but our allies do, ie we're responsible for the milk run but not the decisive force.

Canada turned it down for obvious reasons.

**kato** · 04 Sep 10, 11:29

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

The only new capability the A400M offers is the tactical airlift of a heavy vehicle (Stryker or MRAP).

A Stryker or MRAP is not a "heavy vehicle". With A400M we're talking real heavy stuff like Puma, Boxer or VBCI, or medium artillery systems like Donar/AGM or MLRS/MARS. Stuff that you can't transport with C-130J period.

---

To some extent it's simple economies of scale, at least for Germany:
In the tactical transport situation, we need an aircraft that matches the freight capacity of our non-military strategic lifters (ie. A310 MRTT). For that purpose using a C-130 or a C-17 means we keep with the current bottlenecking at some point in the supply chain, unless we procure an aircraft that can do the tactical lift-in as well (and no, the C-17 does not apply for that role due to its short range - we'd need a fuel tanker in the air as well in that case, which makes it rather uneconomical).

**Stitch** · 05 Sep 10, 03:10

So, basically, you're paying the same for an a/c that has half the capabilty of a C-17?

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

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

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

Real World Performance of Boeing C-17 Transcends C-130J, A-400M and REAMP-RERP C-5M

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Freer Trade Could Fill the World’s Rice Bowl

Canadian fighter jets temporarily fill in for U.S. air defences

All I Want for Christmas Is????(fill in the blank)

The role of the courts

Banned outfits using quake to fill coffers

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions