C-17 or A400M for Australia?

[PETER671BT]

A400m is it a good for AUSTRALIA,Why, when we already have herks,and new ones at that,the defence force should of bought 4 more C-17 and just stick with 12 herks j model.They could of bought reasonable second hand off usa forces for a price of two new herks anyway.

 

[rjmaz1]

A400m is it a good for AUSTRALIA,Why, when we already have herks,and new ones at that,the defence force should of bought 4 more C-17 and just stick with 12 herks j model.They could of bought reasonable second hand off usa forces for a price of two new herks anyway.

Exactly. No way should they introduce yet another different airlifter.

However if we need a medium/heavy air lifter in the future the A400m will be the only aircraft being produced so we may have no choice.

More C-17's may cost more now, but they will get flown less and last longer. This means that you save money on buying replacements. Also it helps reduce the workload of all the other air lifters, so the money goes a long way.

It would be the safest option. You can never have enough transport aircraft however not enough aircraft can cripple the military.

However rarely do you actually need the ability to carry a single 50+ tone load. So you could just split the load between two C-130's. Aircraft in the C-5 and C17 size always claim that they can carry heavy armoured vehicles but they never do in real life. Thats what ships are for

This is the argument that the government will use not to buy more C-17's. In the local region the C-130J's are more than capable i guess.

 

[Magoo]

Exactly. No way should they introduce yet another different airlifter.

However if we need a medium/heavy air lifter in the future the A400m will be the only aircraft being produced so we may have no choice.

More C-17's may cost more now, but they will get flown less and last longer. This means that you save money on buying replacements. Also it helps reduce the workload of all the other air lifters, so the money goes a long way.

It would be the safest option. You can never have enough transport aircraft however not enough aircraft can cripple the military.

However rarely do you actually need the ability to carry a single 50+ tone load. So you could just split the load between two C-130's. Aircraft in the C-5 and C17 size always claim that they can carry heavy armoured vehicles but they never do in real life. Thats what ships are for

This is the argument that the government will use not to buy more C-17's. In the local region the C-130J's are more than capable i guess.

Weight carrying power isn't the only consideration. The A400M is a very attractive 'middle ground' to existing C-130 operators as well as to C-17 operators as it can carry many palletised payloads that the other two types also carry, less than the C-17, but more than the C-130J, and it spreads these aircraft's range capabilities nicely too. It's not just compatibility of systems and whether it's "another different airlifter", it's also how complimentary each other's systems are.

The A400M will be not much dearer than a Herc to operate, can fly further, and can carry twice as much, but is much cheaper than a C-17 which will rarely use its maximum capabilities. It'd add a great deal of flexibility to an airlift force such as Australia's that is very airlift dependant, as it's perfect for supporting smaller ADF ops or civil disaster ops within Australia or the near-region that are too big for a Herc.

Just for a moment, compare the RAAF's airlift needs with those of an airline. Most large airlines have 100-200 seaters, 200-300 seaters, 300 to 400 seaters, and 400+ seaters in order to have sufficient flexibility to support ops on domestic services, and on 'long and thin' (e.g. Sydney to Bali or Osaka) or heavily travelled (Sydney to LA or Bangkok/London) international routes. Qantas operates A320/737s, 767/A330s, 747-300s and 747-400s in these size categories respectively, and will soon intoduce 480-seat A380s to replace many of the 747-400s, and 200-300 seat 787s to replace the 767/A330s. All it will need after that is a 300-400-seater, which will likely be filled by later 787 variants or possibly the 777.

An efficient airlift organisation needs that same flexibility, although it doesn't often have the advanced notice to be able to deploy its assets effectively like an airline. So, not counting the smaller choppers, the ADF in the decade ahead will likely have CH-47F, C-27J, C-130J, A400M and C-17, giving it a really nice spread in range/payload capabilities and therefore, great flexibility in supporting our diverse interests.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Pusser01]

Just on a related side issue, there has been speculation around the traps about the Hercs also being moved to Amberly. As this would concentrate the transport elements in one location I can see the merits, but it would also be the death knell for Richmond. Thoughts?
Cheers

 

[Magoo]

Just on a related side issue, there has been speculation around the traps about the Hercs also being moved to Amberly. As this would concentrate the transport elements in one location I can see the merits, but it would also be the death knell for Richmond. Thoughts?
Cheers

It's a political hot potato at the moment.

The RAAF has wanted to move the Hercs to Amberley for years but the seat Richmond is in is a marginal federal one and therefore the pork will continue to rise to the surface until the seat either becomes safer or changes hands.

You should have seen Nelson and the local member (Kerry Bartlett?) trading snips at the C-17 announcement almost a year go. Bartlett had his say and announced the augmented 37SQN would be staying at Richmond for the "foreseeable future".

When he'd finished and sat down again next to Nelson and obviously thought no one could hear, he went on to mutter to Nelson and co that "possession is 9/10s of the law" etc, to which Nelson, Angus and Shep just smiled or rolled their eyes. I was close enough at the time to hear it all and when they saw me Bartlett got a very sharp jab in the ribs from Nelson to shutup. Was almost comical!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[rickshaw]

Richmond being abandoned as been on the cards for over 30 years. I still think they should turn it into the new International Airport for Sydney. If they move the transports north, there won't be much left there and its all very valuable real estate, very valuable.

 

[Occum]

It's a political hot potato at the moment.

The RAAF has wanted to move the Hercs to Amberley for years but the seat Richmond is in is a marginal federal one and therefore the pork will continue to rise to the surface until the seat either becomes safer or changes hands.

You should have seen Nelson and the local member (Kerry Bartlett?) trading snips at the C-17 announcement almost a year go. Bartlett had his say and announced the augmented 37SQN would be staying at Richmond for the "foreseeable future".

When he'd finished and sat down again next to Nelson and obviously thought no one could hear, he went on to mutter to Nelson and co that "possession is 9/10s of the law" etc, to which Nelson, Angus and Shep just smiled or rolled their eyes. I was close enough at the time to hear it all and when they saw me Bartlett got a very sharp jab in the ribs from Nelson to shutup. Was almost comical!

Cheers

Magoo

Oh so true and now with the Super Hornet push, the Amberfield folks are looking for new careers and Cameron Thompson is counting his numbers and, rightly, getting concerned.

According to the colored gentlemen in the timber industry, Australia only got 14 jobs out of the C-17 deal and most of those are for supply clerk types!

So much for promoting the smart country, eh! The smarter ones would have seen the writing on the wall with the HUG program - this type of approach does nothing for the Australian aerospace industry; just creates jobs for folks overseas.

 

[moahunter]

Just for a moment, compare the RAAF's airlift needs with those of an airline. Most large airlines have 100-200 seaters, 200-300 seaters, 300 to 400 seaters, and 400+ seaters in order to have sufficient flexibility to support ops on domestic services, and on 'long and thin' (e.g. Sydney to Bali or Osaka) or heavily travelled (Sydney to LA or Bangkok/London) international routes. Qantas operates A320/737s, 767/A330s, 747-300s and 747-400s in these size categories respectively, and will soon introduce 480-seat A380s to replace many of the 747-400s, and 200-300 seat 787s to replace the 767/A330s. All it will need after that is a 300-400-seater, which will likely be filled by later 787 variants or possibly the 777.

You are missing an important point. The most successful airlines today keep to fewer types of aircraft. In North America, airlines like SouthWest, and WestJet fly exclusively 737's. In Australasia, Air New Zealand sticks with Boeing's, and Rolls Royce engines. Simple examples, but it is common sense to keep the systems consistent, in terms of parts, maintenance, but also training, and that common sense is now recognized by Air Forces around the world, who are eliminating / simplifying the number of systems (like the US navy scraping F14's for the F18 Superhornet).

I actually think that the A400M is going to be a miserable failure, it has been one massive cost over-run. Even in Europe, nations are realizing it was a mistake, they would rather buy C17's for those odd times they need heavy lift (political pressure is the only reason more nations have not purchased c17's). Most C130 missions are only about a third full anyway, so there is just not the need for the bigger capacity of the A400M, there is no need to carry around that much extra empty cargo space. It is a flawed "in-between" product, not big enough for true distance heavy lift, but more costly than competitors for the smaller role. This is why Embraers c390 will be Hercules size - it is the proven sweet spot in the world market. Embraer, unlike Airbus, I am betting will be able to bring this plane in to cost also, this plane will be a true Herc competitor. By contrast, the A400M which fills a niche that no-body needs filled - for roughly the same money, small military nations of the world will always pick 2 proven effective hercules (which can be maintained anywhere) over 1 more complex A400M.

IMO Australia would have been foolish to be the first country to buy A400M's for reasons other than political.

 

[alexsa]

You are missing an important point. The most successful airlines today keep to fewer types of aircraft. In North America, airlines like SouthWest, and WestJet fly exclusively 737's..

Yes but they only fly a particular type of short haul service so this is nor a relevant example.

In Australasia, Air New Zealand sticks with Boeing's, and Rolls Royce engines. Simple examples, but it is common sense to keep the systems consistent, ..

Sorry that wrong. ANZ fly A320 family air craft as well as a range of boeing products (and no they don't all have RR engines). QANTAS and its subsiduary airlines (including jet star) have A380 (soon to arrive) 747-400ER (with GE engines) 747-400 (yep these have RR), 747-300 (beng paied off), 787 (on order, delivery time not set) 767-200 and 300 (with a range of engines), A330-200 and 300, A320/A321, B737-800 and 400 (300's are beng paid off), Dash 8 (of allvaries but the 100's are being paid off) and B717 .............. not exactly Boeing products wiht RR engines, so again a very poor example.

in terms of parts, maintenance, but also training, and that common sense is now recognized by Air Forces around the world, who are eliminating / simplifying the number of systems (like the US navy scraping F14's for the F18 Superhornet)...

Well that was the reason behind A9000 for the helicopters but ther are time where one aircraft will simply not fit all roles or would be less satisfactory for all roles. in these situations you need to balance requirements. Different airframes do not alway mean a range of new training or systems (take the comonality between the A340 and A330 as an example).

I actually think that the A400M is going to be a miserable failure, it has been one massive cost over-run. Even in Europe, nations are realizing it was a mistake, they would rather buy C17's for those odd times they need heavy lift (political pressure is the only reason more nations have not purchased c17's)...

.

Care to justify the miserabkle failure comment. It is interesting that the UK is looking at both A400 and C17 for different tasks. And if we are looking at comparision the c-130J project was not especailly smooth noting this was a development of an existing sytem.

Most C130 missions are only about a third full anyway,...

Really........ proof please

. so there is just not the need for the bigger capacity of the A400M, there is no need to carry around that much extra empty cargo space. It is a flawed "in-between" product, not big enough for true distance heavy lift, but more costly than competitors for the smaller role. This is why Embraers c390 will be Hercules size - it is the proven sweet spot in the world market. Embraer, unlike Airbus, I am betting will be able to bring this plane in to cost also, this plane will be a true Herc competitor. By contrast, the A400M which fills a niche that no-body needs filled - for roughly the same money, small military nations of the world will always pick 2 proven effective hercules (which can be maintained anywhere) over 1 more complex A400M..

But at greater operating costs if you need to operate both aircarft to fulfillt he same need.

.IMO Australia would have been foolish to be the first country to buy A400M's for reasons other than political.

Sorry your argument seems to be couched in terms of a blind affection for one platform over another rather than an objective assesemnt and I will take magoo's view in this case..

 

[Sea Toby]

I am of the opinion the RAAF should buy a couple of more C-17s while they are still being built, and not buy anymore C-130s or A-400d. The aircraft that should be bought are Caribou replacements. Is it the Casa 295? Ten to fifteen of these would be great. Keep the C-130Js.

 

[moahunter]

Sorry your argument seems to be couched in terms of a blind affection for one platform over another rather than an objective assesemnt and I will take magoo's view in this case..

Some people have read too much A400M marketing hype as well - there is a reason these aircraft aren't selling outside Europe, and it's not just because they are taking forever to complete and have gone way past their original price point (thanks to a horrible cost over-run). The reason is that they fill a niche that doesn't really exit in any quantity. The A400M will never make money for Airbus (outside of the subsidy by its European buyers), unlike the C130j, and possibly even the Embraer. I define that as a miserable failure.

I'm not a huge fan of the C130j, it has its issues (like composite propellers shreding on gravel runways). But, overall, it is a proven aricraft that Australia already has, so it would make sense to expand on that base, if needed. If more capacity is required, buy a C17. C17 and C130J, along with another smaller aircraft will meet virtually all of Australias transport needs. With respect to a smaller aircraft, the C27j may be the best best (as it uses the same engine and systems as C130j - Canada is taking this approach). Less need for pilot training, new parts suppliers, etc. Learn from succesful North American airlines (like SouthWest) - keep it simiple and effective, not complex and wasteful.

 

[Pingu]

I agree that a mix of C-17s and C-130s offers better balance. However, as far as Europe is concerned, the A-400 is ideal for vehicles such as Boxer and FRES family of vehicles, where the A-400 would be ample in terms of load carrying capacity but more deployable than C-17.

 

[ASFC]

Some people have read too much A400M marketing hype as well - there is a reason these aircraft aren't selling outside Europe, and it's not just because they are taking forever to complete and have gone way past their original price point (thanks to a horrible cost over-run). The reason is that they fill a niche that doesn't really exit in any quantity. The A400M will never make money for Airbus (outside of the subsidy by its European buyers), unlike the C130j, and possibly even the Embraer. I define that as a miserable failure.

Then it would be a commerical failiure for Airbus then, not a military one.
179 C-17s have been built to date, with the production line in its death throws (depending on the whim of Congress). 192 A400M have been ordered-only 4 of those might be cancelled (Malaysia) due to problems the other 188 are being built for the industry partner countries, who are unlikely to pull the plug as it is creating work for their companies.

And if no more orders for C-17s are forthcoming from the US, its production line will close. That is going to leave the Strategic lift market in the hands of the A400M and whatever the Russians can produce. The end of the C-17 line is the reason why some countries have scrambled to order them before the line closes.

You seem to be forgetting-the A400 does not cover a niche, it is a long range transport, just like the C-17. The C-130J will not be able to compete with the A400Ms range. The fact that Europe is buying the A400M is the want for C130/C-160 operating costs and size, more range and more lift capability than a C-130/C-160 without buying an expensive lifter like the C-17.

IMO Australia will only buy the A400 either because their C-130J's wear out or because they did not buy enough C-17s before its line closed and they need more long range airlift capacity. I doubt that they are not buying it because it is some sort of 'failiure'.

 

[Firehorse]

IMO, some day even the US will have to buy A400Ms! They are going to mature in due time, possibly metamorphosize into stretched versions, and unless C-17 get redesigned/stretched, drop in price, and produced in large numbers, the USAF will have to lease or buy AN-124s from Ukraine!
http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/gener...&headline=A400M Could Dominate Strategic Lift

The C-130J is nothing more than an upgraded C-130- you can only improve an old design so much-
http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDF&i=3624851

 

[moahunter]

IMO, some day even the US will have to buy A400Ms! They are going to mature in due time, possibly metamorphosize into stretched versions, and unless C-17 get redesigned/stretched, drop in price, and

Aside from the political reality that the US would not do this, I doubt the US will want to bear the inflated cost of the A400M (i.e. pay for all the mistakes in development). If by some chance the US did consider going offshore, they will choose a lower cost option, like the Embraer 390, which has a projected cost of only $50m (versus C130j $60-$70m) - this airplane could capture much of the world market...

 

[Firehorse]

Some A-400M components are already made on this side of the Atlantic- and more production could be done to secure US orders. I've read in AW&ST magazine just a week ago that the Airbus and their subsidiaries are already looking into marketing it in USA. That's the price to be paid for not investing in new types- and that's why the US Army & CG had to buy jointly developed C-27Js and CN-235s.

 

[Todjaeger]

IMO, some day even the US will have to buy A400Ms! They are going to mature in due time, possibly metamorphosize into stretched versions, and unless C-17 get redesigned/stretched, drop in price, and produced in large numbers, the USAF will have to lease or buy AN-124s from Ukraine!
http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/gener...&headline=A400M Could Dominate Strategic Lift

The C-130J is nothing more than an upgraded C-130- you can only improve an old design so much-
http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDF&i=3624851

This post IMV, is silly.

It is indeed possible that at some point, the US could end up ordering A400M aircraft. To say it is likely, or that the US would even have to is, to be nice, just silly. The US aviation industry has the most experience developing and constructing military transport aircraft in the Western world. To declare that it would not continue to be able to fill USAF long-range/strategic lift needs, short of a major war, etc does not make sense.

Yes, at some point the C-17 production line will close. Depending on Congress and the USAF it could be relatively soon, it might not occur for some time yet. Given the perceived state of the USAF C-5 fleet, I am not so sure that the C-17 line will shut down just yet.

If/when the DoD re-examines strategic lift requirements and decides a new transport is required, I am sure Boeing and LockMart would be more than happy to submit proposals, as would Airbus. Whatever aircraft chosen from amongst those offered would be a combination of which best met defence needs, politics and cost. The only way for the A400M to 'have' to be the DoD choice would be for Boeing & Lock-Mart to not be capable of offering a proposal. That is not a situation I consider realistic any time soon.

-Cheers

 

[Firehorse]

By the time their proposals are realized, even the newest C-17s will be worn out, given their utilization rate.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1198.cfm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/c17-production-line-out-of-time-02534/

 

[Todjaeger]

By the time their proposals are realized, even the newest C-17s will be worn out, given their utilization rate.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1198.cfm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/c17-production-line-out-of-time-02534/

And your basis for that is what? Given that when needed, a prototype could likely be developed and tested in a matter of 5-10 years (or less). The first C-5 Galaxy served ~34 YEARS before being retired, by way of comparison. To boldly state that due to reduced numbers produced and accelerated usage, the US will not be able to design and produce a replacement within the time needed, is not IMV a credible statement. Particularly when the A400M could very well not be available within the same time constraints, given it has not entered series production, and there are existing orders to fufill before any hypothetical USAF order.

The long-range transport aircraft most likely to be replaced first is actually the C-5 Galaxy, given the overall age and reliability of the fleet. That is not something that the A400M could replace. In point of fact, the C-17 does not provide a 1:1 replacement of capacity.

While we are indeed getting away from the topic of this thread, I want posters to consider the reason why the A400M project was started. As I understand it, a number of Nato countries realised that the bulk of the airlift assets within Nato were USAF transport aircraft and that most national air transports were C-130, which are mid-ranged. As a result, if a given nation had some need for a long-ranged military transport mission and US aircraft were not available for some reason, then the given country had no options. The A400M was started to allow European nations to build up their own strategic transport capability, as the defence situation shifted away from the Cold War era Defence of Europe scenario. As such, a larger & longer-ranged aircraft than the ubiquitous C-130 Herc was planned, but smaller than the C-5 or C-17 since the intended missions where not to involve such heavy lifting.

-Cheers

 

[Firehorse]

Not only that, but the C-130s & Transall C-160 they operate were nearing the end of their life. It's worth to note that Malaysia, Australia's neighbor, also have A-400Ms on order.
IMO though, it takes long time from the concept to initial production- if they didn't want to spend $ on a real C-130 follow-on, not the J model, what make you think they'll do so in the next decade?