The chart shown at 1:27 does make for some interesting reading. The range calculations were made with loads @ 20,000 kilo range, which has the Herc lifting 93% maximum weight, the A400M about 54% its max load and the C-17 hauling about 23% its max load. Naturally the Herc will struggle for range working at the top end of its lift capability.
If it happens, airbus will probably be required to open a plant in the US and build it here or form a joint venture with a US firm. UNLESS, this it is a very small (single squadron at most) procurement.
John - You seem to have an enviable crystal ball there. Care to share some factual detail maybe? How are you so sure? Airbus / EADS were going to build the A330 MRTT / KC-45 in Alabama. When they got shafted they still kept their word and built a factory for the A320 family for American customers. There is absolutely NO reason why an A400M assembly plant could not be added if the order was big enough as they have bought enough land for expansion. And here is a little something to consider: When the USMC bought the Harrier (or AV-8A in their parlance) all 110 were built in the UK. Production only moved to the USA (and then it was a joint production with BAE) for the Harrier II / AV-8B. Goshawks are a joint build by Boeing with BAE as well.
John - Dear oh dear you are an annoying little shit aren't you? Precisely what is the difference between 'assembling' and 'building'? And anyway they are actually manufacturing so go chew on that .... Building: noun 1. 2. the action or trade of constructing something. synonyms: construction, erection, putting up, raising, establishment, fabrication, production, ASSEMBLY Assembly: noun noun: assembly; plural noun: assemblies 1. 2. 3. the action of fitting together the component parts of a machine or other object. "a car assembly plant" synonyms: construction, BUILDING, fabrication, MANUFACTURE, erection, setting up, putting together, fitting together, piecing together, connection, joining a unit consisting of components that have been fitted together. "the tail assembly of the aircraft" Manufacture: verb verb: manufacture; 3rd person present: manufactures; past tense: manufactured; past participle: manufactured; gerund or present participle: manufacturing 1. make (something) on a large scale using machinery. "firms who manufacture ball bearings" synonyms: make, produce, mass produce, BUILD, construct, ASSEMBLE, put together, create, fabricate, prefabricate, turn out, process, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, engineer "the company manufactures laser printers"
As 1chish point out there is no discernible difference between building and assembling. Just what are they doing in Toulouse? Pretty much the same thing as they are in Mobile, major components, many subcontracted out, are shipped to Toulouse and assembled / built into aircraft.
Keith - Give up mate he isn't open to persuasion by factual debate. given every Airbus wing is made in the UK (as are all the engines for A330neo and A350 and most of the A380s) no Airbus factory makes everything. They have an excellent policy of concentrated excellence in different places....
I say ... look at the result of KC A330/B767 contest.... A330 won but it ended upp with a B767 contract.... you will never see a A400M in a US uniform, trust me! But forcing aliies to buy F-35 by political menacing statement is ok?
In reality, the award to the KC45 was challenged by Boeing for very fair reasons that had nothing to do with politics. EADS/Northrop offered a lower bid, but some of the requirements weren’t met. That protest was upheld by the GAO, not USAF. That was why the bid was re-opened. At that time, EADS saw they could not actually fulfill the requirements and dropped out of the bidding, but then they changed their minds and came back in. EADS only got that contract because they could deliver earlier and shift A330 freighter assembly to Alabama (which has nothing to do with the Air Force). In reality, that delivery price depended on the first 4 tails to be conversions from stock passenger aircraft, not purpose-built aircraft.
leonardimas1 Make your own! Who’s stopping you? By the way, that frigate contract will likely end up investigated and cancelled, given the LCS contract before it and the 3-star retired admiral who works for the manufacturer. There is almost no doubt the final price was a blatant lie given the cost of the simpler NSC Cutter made by the same.
Given the climate in the US, there is absolutely no chance of this happening. Even if, say the President, were to consider that this would be no big deal, and the Pentagon too, the American public would not accept such a high profile vehicle being purchased from Europe. This is a nonstarter.
+1chish Anytime we try to predict the future, we're running a significant risk of being wrong. I'm not going to say that you couldn't be right. You could be right, but I think there's a significant difference, symbolically, between buying an American plane, with pieces built by allies (especially a very close ally), and buying a foreign aircraft of this magnitude.
+OceanBlue I think you've already shown exactly what I mean about the climate in the US. By that, I mean the general consensus that is the "Buy American" idea. This is pretty common in the US, and especially true for anything military. That's my point, and while something like this could conceivably fly in the US under very favorable conditions, no such conditions exist in the US currently.
+OceanBlue Oh look its an American Patriot trying to compare different aircraft built for entirely different purposes! Problem is Old Son is that C-17 was so good that Boeing shut the production line down. And for those that were built yes it lifts more weight but has less volume and can't go where the A400M can. As for the C-130 being a better aircraft well sorry it isn't. It doesn't carry the same payload or volume of cargo the A400M can. It can't even carry your own Stryker vehicles! An A400M can and has done as the RAF proved recently. And the C-5 is a very big aircraft thats for sure. But it can't even go where the C-17 can and no chance doing what an A400M can in unprepared areas. But hey as long as you believe 'MURICAAA' is best well great ....
IMHO it depends on the numbers: If the US needs a lot of them, they will produce something in house. If they need some of them to meet some strategic need, they may purchase them abroad.
New Zealand needs this. We have to knock bits off our LAV's and shoehorn them into C-130's to get them anywhere! The capacity, or increasing lack thereof, is a drawback of the C-130. Going forward, actually right now, we need that extra capacity. Unfortunately, we are contractually and politically intricately tied into the US military system.
Not a chance. If the US military decides it needs an outsize cargo tactical freighter, Lockheed Martin will simply dust off plans for the C-130XL and deliver that niche capability at an even lower price. It was customer disinterest that shelved that project, not any failings in the design itself.
I don't entirely see the US' purchase of A400M aircraft as all that likely. I can't think of a single aircraft currently in the US' fleet which comes from a foreign manufacturer.
Why doesn't Europe buy the Kawaskai C-2? It is a superior product than the A400M Albatross. The Europeans don't know how to make competitive planes and in 20 years China will be all over Airbus.
Oh yeah, and that’s why European countries are ordering the C-130J like France. When the gear boxes of those engines are finally fixed, you may offer the plane to us, with the certainty that we will not buy any because we really don’t need it.
C130J is purchase for the special force, because actually the A400M lacks the refuel of helicopter(In development). When you want to troll, take care with your infos ;)
@@Sedna063 along with France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Italy and UK, are the European countries that have placed 48 orders all together for the C-130J.
@@polduseri909 Denmark, Norway, Italy weren't part of the A400 consortium in the beginning. Framce bought 4 C130-J. Germany bought 6. UK bought some, I couldn't find how many. In any case, those nations that bought the A400 M didn't buy more than 15 in total.
@@Sedna063 You are so funny, trying to make numbers you don’t remember to make appear that nobody in Europe is interested in the C-130J. Here are purchases of the Hercules in its “J” variant for the three of the four countries involved in the development and production of the A400: UK: 14, Germany: 6, and France: 4. Total: 24 planes. Do you research and then come back with facts not with memories.
I finished my USAF career in the C-130, it is my personal opinion that the current fleet is not enough for expeditionary warfare. The A-400 is an awesome airplane. Maybe if they were built in Mobile, AL? Personally I think they should buy 747 freighters, but that won’t be an option soon.
Why no mention of the AN70. I am certain if a US Company approached Antonov they would gladly go into partnership with them if the USA wants a new transport. They have solved the engine problem. The fact the AN70 has better range for payload confirms that. The now relatively older designed airframe could easily be upgraded with a US partner and any avionics etc. the USA wanted put in it. If I remember correctly that is what Germany wanted to do but the French and Britain would not agree.
...remeber the tanker-'contest'? The Airbus was the MUCH better plane... ...but Boeing was american...! (but the US had to bend the rules 2 times to help Boeing win)
UHHHH NOOOOO, it wasn't and the RFP bid response was rightfully challenged because buying the AIRBUS would have meant the USAF would have had to spend BILLIONS MORE on MILITARY CONSTRUCTION on Air bases in the USA and around the world to support the Additional weight of the fully loaded AIRBUS TANKERS. I'll bet that was never mentioned by your government controlled media in Europe. Oh and let's not forget that AIRBUS has had many problems getting their refueling booms to fly and transfer fuel whereas BOEING has been doing it quite well since the late 1940s - another inconvenient FACT you EUROTRASH DELIBERATELY OVERLOOK.
Oh really you pansy? What are you going to do about it? Kick my ass? You are a joke. AIRBUS is subsidized by your national governments. BOEING has to stand on its own. And don't try to pass off that tired crap that the defense sector of Boeing subsidizes the commercial. That tired story is fantasy because the majority of Boeing's business and revenue is commercially based. Boeing defense sector is actually shrinking due to declining defense budgets in the USA.
Guys, Paul Connors is a quack, just look at his tinfoil-hat theories concerning the media just because they don't stick their nose up Trump's arse. I suppose we Europeans must also be in control of CNN and MSNBC too. Ignore him and just converse with grownups.
I think one risk is that one of the US manufacturers will try to sell something new based on blended-wing-body and or hybrid propulsion as a way to get the military to pay for developing technology or even a complete aeroplane that can then be used for civil aircraft. This, obviously, would be exceedingly expensive but things like the 747 got developed in similar ways.
Boeing only went after civilian Embraer operations (E-Series jets) to compete in the regional market against Airbus’ Bombardier purchase. The military and business jet manufacturing would stay with Embraer. You need to read more!
@@gazza2933 No the U.S. isn't the only country to. Make good aircrt. But you must not be an American. You see the U.S. Military doesn't like to depend on other countries for military hardware. EUROPE should look to there E.U. buddies. The U.S. has it own military manufacturing here and build by our own people and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. That's the way we like it. New Sheriff in town. Obama sold the U.S. out but TRUMP has said 🇺🇸 AMERICA FIRST 🇺🇸. And that's the way we want it. No more putting us in the back sit and looking to help everyone else.
@@78.BANDIT I hope your stupidity is not typical of the average US resident. Somehow I hardly doubt it, might do you good to get yourself a passport . . .
Never, ever happen. The A400M has so many issues, and the USA has better airlifters already (C-17, for example) and is developing new ones. Ask the Germans how well they like their A400M (when they are actually operational). In fact, there are many in the Luftwaffe who said that they made a huge mistake and should have gotten the C-17 instead.
Actually they like them very much. Obviously Airbus had problems but tbh, it was their first trial for a cargo aircraft for military. Meanwhile Boeing can't even modify a tanker.
@@AgentPepsi1 I am one. I do not deny this. But consider, would I want my tax euros spend in Europe or would I want a few billions to go over the great pond to finance the wages of US citizens? The US does exactly the same thing and went with a subpar design for a tanker that needs longer than 10 years to develop and has such quality control issues that the AF doesn't accept them. Meanwhile the A330 MRTT was a proven design, has beaten the KC46 in almost every competition for tankers and operates flawlessly. There are talks that the KC-10s will be replaced by Airbus. Military procurement is industrial politics. Finally Europe can make their own large scale aviation projects.
It would have to be built here. Under US law, all military equipment had to be built in the USA. We bought the HK-416 in the form of the M-27 and the Piranha III in the form of the Stryker, but they’re all made here.
And how will you make the those aircraft perfom short take offs and short landings? The A380, can not be converted to a freighter, the upper floor can not handle weight, and the airframe will not accept a cargo door. So how do you think it would work as a military transport?
The C-17 is great but it needs better runways than the A400M. The C-130J is a modern enough aircraft but more of a special mission deal than a transport. The equipment gets larger and heavier all the time, even an IFV or APC is 15 to 30 metric tonnes.
@@bzdtemp Most overseas air bases are occupied for decades. The runway itself is not that expensive, it is the supporting hardware and buildings that bring costs up. Larger aircraft tend to be more more economically efficient for delivering cargo. Fewer trips and/or fewer aircraft are required to move the same volume of cargo. This results in less spent on aircraft acquisition, maintenance, fuel, personnel, and the support required for more personnel. The cost over time to build more large runways with a smaller number of larger aircraft is much less than the cost for many small aircraft on small runways to accomplish the same mission. A runway and some support for it is required either way, the extra runway length and load limit is a relatively small additional cost compared to the billions spent on the total cost of ownership for more aircraft. The runways are already built by contract in remote areas, the locations are not a problem for the size of the runway as long as it is not on a tiny island. Even many tiny island bases have had sufficient length for many large aircraft and the construction was completed without any serious issues.
Why would the USA want the A400M? IT'S A MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE!!! Besides the C-130J is still extremely capable in still being produced in the USA! C-130J has been CONTINOUSLY UPGRADED AND VERY RUGGED AND RELIABLE!!! A400M will be a liability in time of war.
If a compelling US production agreement could be negotiated, I hope that the DOD and Congress would find a way purchase and integrate the A400M into the US Armed Forces logistical support structure. It's just a personal opinion but, I really feel that this platform would compliment and bolster our ability to "deliver the goods" no matter what.
The belugas are not designed to lift heavy loads, just large structures. Wings, and fuselage sections are large, but not heavy. Freighters need to be able to carry weight.
If Airbus convinces RNZAF that this is the plane for both tactical and strategic when we decide our replacements later this year, that's 8 planes. Considering we were considering C17 only a few years ago, I think a better fit than the C130J
The schedule for Paris this year had a C-130 within 15 minutes EVERY time the A400m went up (either the C-130J or the new civilian freighter). One thing they did keep a little quiet, it has in the past pointed out that the A400 is FIVE YEAS LATE AND NEARLY 40% OVER BUDGET, which is being eaten by the countries involved. The British were forced to buy Herkybirds due to late deliveries.
fooman2108 - I think you will find they leased 4 C-17s as a stopgap in 2004 not Hercs. They eventually ordered more C-17s even though the A400M was then in production and bought the leased aircraft in addition to the A400M orders. We now have 15 A400Ms of 21 ordered and 8 C-17s
No. All of the RAF's 'herkybirds', (who the f##k calls them that), are J models. They entered service around 1999. Late, over budget, and frankly, at the beginning, shit. Way before the A400M. The original C-130's purchased by the RAF where retired about 5 years ago, after 40 odd years of service. And please dont forget, the USAF originally called the C-17 BUDDHA. Because it was fat, useless and sat on the ground all day, but everybody worshipped it! Eventually, the C-17 became the aircraft it is today, even though many people in Congress and the Pentagon wanted to scrap it!! The A400M WILL become a great aircraft, I know, I work on it. Yes it is over budget, yes it has problems, although to be fair, it is the engines that are the biggest problem and they are not produced by Airbus.The septics will never buy it because it is European, check out the tanker renewal debacle if you dont believe me, changing the rules, buying the aircraft the USAF didnt want, and if you want to look at cost over-runs look no further than Boeings KC-46 Pegasus!
Nearly everyone I know calls them some variety of Herk or Herkybird. LOL. We'll just have to agree to disagree over the government manufactured Airbooos. I do know that in nearly 63 years if you managed to break a herky then you have managed to achieve something. Also, when you pull aircraft off a production line and have to retrofit them to customer (RAF) specs for an 'emergency' order (the A400 was NOT available due to delayed deliveries) it takes TIME. USAF/USMC/USN/USCG do NOT have refueling capability and a different set of electronics that RAF models. The equivalent would be me taking a Chevrolet Suburban and armoring and fitting it for the PM (not that he would have one LOL), it would take time and cost money.
fooman - Only comment I want to make is that the A400M is not a "government manufactured Airbooos". Airbus is a private company and even the WTO had to disagree with Boeing when it made a complaint about 'subsidies'. Pointing out that Boeing was unfairly subsidised by State tax breaks, US Government military funding overspills and NASA free gratis and for nothing research. So I think we could safely say that Boeing is more 'government' than is Airbus. the only area Airbus got pulled up on was the rates of interest it arranged through the markets.
Good luck with that one. Airbus needs to focus on hanging on to the customers it already supposedly has and actually delivering their aircraft before they drop their orders.
The only Foreign Airlifter with any chance with the USAF is the Embraer KC-390 which has been teamed up with Boeing and is also closer to being a true replacement for the C-130
If this plane was considered, why not the An - 70? It is less than half of the Airbus cost. It can be built with Western Avionics, Western Engines. It is built in the Ukraine, and as far as I know, the An -70 & An-124 are good transport & cargo aircraft which cost less than Airbus. I do not believe the US would be willing to purchase foreign made aircraft, but now days, who knows? I know Boeing & Lockheed would raise Hell about it.
tactically transporting heavy armored vehicles. the c-130 is too small and can't take the heavy payload and the c17 too big to land on anything other than a runway which isn't very tactical.
When you get much larger than a C-130 for use on unprepared airfields the risk to damaging the runway and damaging the aircraft increases from the larger weight loads on soft surfaces. USAF prefers to just build a basic paved or temporary hard surface runway when larger aircraft are needed. This allows use by a variety of large jets with higher capacities and capabilities than the A400.
The US government will never hand multi-billion dollar defence contracts to anyone but an American company. Corporate welfare is obviously way more important than anything else.
@@sidharthcs2110 oh ok I thought you meant in general. It is still the most successful transport aircraft since its introduction, better than the American C130J
Even if the USAF buys it, at €150+ per plane, would they really risk sending it to "austere tactical environments"? And would they buy from Boeing's biggest competitor? Maybe it would be politically more palatable to buy from someone who's not a major aircraft manufacturer. Something like the Kawasaki C-2 or even the Embraer KC-390 perhaps?
I was part of the team of suppliers for the A380, spent months in Broughton and Toulouse supporting the program. The original plan for the A380 was that they would be converted to freighters after they were turned back from lease. But structural analysis indicated that the modifications needed to beef up the upper floor and cargo door areas were not practical, and the idea was scrapped. They could haul light freight, but the aircraft will be very expensive to operate like this, and won't be able to compete against smaller twin engine aircraft. Their is at least one A380 parked in storage already.
The U.S. has every right to source their planes at home... Why doesn't the E.U. have that same attitude?, all those F-35 bought from the U.S. when there could be an European alternative...
About the F35 sales in UE, you can learn something with some reading about the AMGOT. Next, despite the "Union", we dont have a federal states in Europe, and when you want to talk about defense, "NATO" is the only word you can heard with the countries of the AMGOT and eastern Europe. Todays we can see a lot of advance on that point (defense and defense industries), but we always have a lot of problem. France and Germany are the 2 biggest country of the EU (with the Brexit), so they must be the base of the European defense... Except... France has all of the specter of industrial and technology in defense, now, she is the only nuclear power of UE, the only thing she needs, it's the money €€€. France is always in "war" since the WW2 (like the USA) we are everywhere in the world (France is not only the France of UE, it's the French Guyana, the French polynesia, New Caledonia, Mayotte... A lot of thing in the world... The 2nd economic area !) In the other side, German is a continental power, very industrial, very rich, but chocked since the end of the WW2 (in fact since 91), she dont want to become a war machine again, so she lets others country (NATO) take the responsability of war. That become to change a little, but only for the German side, the French government and industrial let the German take some part of the cake for having a common defense market/industry. It's highly risky and complicated. French is a big weapons exporter, with flexible rules, when German (they are big too) try to restrain to the minimum. ... I dont write everything so just.... It's complicated, because of our common history, different vision of the future, federalist versus sovereignity. We can say more with the 2 next big project between French and German with the MGCS (Main Ground Combat System, next gen tank for replace Leclerc and Leopard II) and the SCAF(For replace Typhoon and Rafale).
That aircraft have proven how good it is, and could fill in where there is a need for heavy lifting of troops, and cargo, but the aircraft would probably have to be built here in this country though to employ our workers. The company could use some closed airbase to use to build and test the aircraft. The C-130J will be in service for a long time, and the military could use more aircraft for use in this country, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Is this another one of those Simpsons cartoon moments... "the face of the American airforce, the pride of America, the British Harrier jump jet!!" Lol. (Before leaving angry replies, it's just a joke)
If the Air Force was smart they could have a capable aircraft in the A400M at a bargain price. I expect some day in the distant future a US domestic military contractor will develop something similar to the A400M at triple the price. You could build a factory and produce the aircraft in the United States and the Europeans could buy 50 C-17's to help balance the trade.
The C17 is not produce today... In fact we should be happy with not the C17 but a fleet of C5 galaxy ! (It's can be a good project for the NATO, a new gen UltraHeavy Strategic cargo)
@Bill J she is correct, it has zero chance. The USAF needs are being met by the C-130J , C-17 and C-5. They are developing their next lifter which has design requirements that A400M can not meet. as for Izno comments, 90 percent bullshit , 10 percent ish reality, Boeing did not say the C-17 was killed by the A400M. The C-17 is heavy weight lifter and all the air forces that needed have it or use something else in place. The MRTT is only replacing the French KC-135 and that's it. The A380F only as 7 percent more payload the than 747-8F and 12 more than the C-5 which is marginal at best. The C-130J is not any danger, it sits at 300 orders to the A400M's 179. More to the point between 2005 till January 2017, zero orders. Both French and German are ordering the C-130J. Spain and Germany both are trying to rid of 13 each. Germany ended leasing them. Airbus has not made any AWACS or ECM planes. and the rest of his post is more nonsense with few actual facts. the Frances exports sub, the US does not. The Mistral can not be enlarged ,more to point the Mistrals lower cost and build is because they forgo the ability to support jets Even DEVGRU and USMC buy H&K or FN riffles? I seriously wonder if this nimrod thinks before he writes the military buy all types of weapons , including russian and chinese for operations of plausible deniability. everything else no mentioned is nonsense he like to make up
@AgentPepsi1 a better statement would the EU relies heavily on US support. Naval wise, the EU is severely lacking in surface combatants. they rely heavily on small frigates. They are cheaper to build however they lack survivabillity against larger surface combatants. The EU has few Nuclear powered subs, just France and the UK, everyone else is diesel ,AIP again cheaper however the lack endurance and weapons. The EU has more carriers than Russia, however Russia and EU are land locked so they march through. So in a hypothetical war with Russia , the EU would be at a disadvantage. France and the UK subs are the only ones capable of long range land attack. same with surface ships. so contrary to what Izno thinks, the EU can not take on Russia or China in a conflict
@ Izno Iznogoud First the EU does not have 2000 jets. its closer 1400. secondly the 16 US bases in the EU says otherwise. Without US C-17s and C-5. The RAF is only country in the EU with heavy lifter abilites via 8 C-17. artillery like the panzerhauitze 2000 which weights 55 ton and AS-90 45 ton and main battle tanks cannot be transported by the A400M No EU made heavy lifter. with out the US, the EU has little chance. FREMM ,there are just 4 and stealth frigates are still no match for larger surface combatants. lets see FREMM frigates have Aster missiles which max out 74 miles for ship borne model, Exocets,and SCALP missile in 48 cell. That 8-9 ton destroyer packs 3 times the fire power as the does the Zumwalt with just her 80 VLS. Unlike the EU, the US pays the cost for extra firepower. "Remember how the USS Stark got owned by old Exocets" you are literally incapable of fact checking the Stark was hit in 1987, the Exocet was still a modern missile at that time. more to the point the Exocet is carried by Fremm frigates currently second the USS Stark took two hits and still stayed afloat. "When you know how US fleets were ridiculed by EU diesel or AIP subs on every drill." The concept of training completely obvious to you navlog.org/asw_feb06.html- The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against modern diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking. you are making light of the fact that US recognizes its problems and are actually fixing it. The Navy screwed up when they left go of the S-3 "Some AIP can stay underwater up to 3 weeks, this is actually not really pussy." nuclear powered subs can stay under 3 months plus MdCN- only one sub class can launch this missile www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/secret-data-on-india-s-scorpene-class-submarines-leaked-report/story-PqS96Ob4G5tGY088F07tzH.html The nimitz carries up to 130 planes , what the does the de gaulle carry againt and like all your post the rest is nonsense. The DEAC is a concept that has yet to gain any traction, the US has 11 carriers for reason dumbass, its called redundancy. The zircon and brahmoss II are coming at time when US is fitting laser CIWS to its ships www.janes.com/article/68550/usn-plans-accelerated-laser-weapon-fit-on-ddg-51-flight-iia-destroyer
The video clearly mentioned it: The C17 can't go where the A400M can. A runway for the A400M can be built by Army Pioneers during morning excercises, the C17 needs a paved runway.
A400M dont have the same role than the C17, so yes he can compete. In simple word: A400M is a large tactical aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft. If you cannot read the difference in that phrase, you are not able to judge the capability of an aircraft to "compete" with an other.
This thing is hampered with massive engine problems and structural problems. The German A400Ms stil do not work properly. The program has massive delays. It also doesnt make too much strategic sense for the US to buy foreign military goods of that magnitude.
Rubashow - Sorry you are talking the same bullcrap your mate John Hall is. What "massive engine problems"? List and identify each one. There has been the one fatal crash on a test flight in Spain involving engine issues because of incorrect fitting / settings of three engine modules. There are no other engine issues. There were some random gearbox issues in 2015 / 2016 with 14 propellers on equipment supplied by General Electric. They were traced and fixed by the supplier and no aircraft were removed from service What "structural problems." Again list and identify each one. Do you mean the one known cracking behaviour that had already been identified during quality control checks in 2011 and found in an aluminium fuselage part of a French A400M? A condition that did not result in any groundings and that could be corrected in normal maintenance. The RAF have 15, of 22 on order, operating with no major failures or indeed delays during acceptance / bedding in flights. So your 'massive' means one engine module failure (FADEC) in one and one previously known cracking condition in another? You need to check your use of language pal ....
I was thinking 'ancient' in concept. C130 first flight, 1954. A400 first flight 2009. I know that the C130s have gone through endless updates but, even so, it is not good that the SAS won't consider using the A400.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The special forces use the C-130 because it has been tested and adapted for the task. Right now, the RAF have had the A400M for about 3 years, it is still being introduced into service. They have just started doing low level work and NVG training, this year. The crews are inexperienced in A400M operations compared to the C-130 crews. The plan has always been to use the A400M as a transport aircraft until sufficient aircraft and crews and equipment are available to train in the very specialist tasks that the 47SF crews already undertake. Where are you making up this BS about the SAS refusing to use it? It isnt ready, spec'ed or equipped to do SF work, so I would imagine most people would 'refuse' to work with it, not just the SAS!
although highly unlikely there is a chance. giving americans a greater piece of the pie going forward can make a lot of changes. If they agree to final assembly in the USA like they currently do with the UH-72, A321, and previously the KC-45 then it can happen. If you partner with a company like L-3 to market the aircraft then it's a possibility. The more likely option is the USSOCOM. Give special forces the option to evaluate the aircraft and they may buy some in small quantities like they already do with BAE aircraft and older german designs.
Never happening.Apart from its cost and overdue target fulfilment it is not made by the USA.America should develop its own plane if the C130 etc are not sufficient.That is assuming this niche actually exists.Some would say Airbus has classically developed a solution to a non existent problem
First of all, the computer synth voices half these videos have these days is more exciting to listen to than this guy reading his pre-written essay. Secondly, aint gonna happen. Consider the AW101 Merlin helicopter, & the A330 MRTT. Both won selection for the US armed forces, when selected by the armed forces, but Congress killed them. Instead, Sikorsky built a whole new chopper for marine one & Boeing has supposedly reinvented the 767 for the new tanker requirement. I'm pretty sure Boeing & Lockheed, & the US Government that sponsors them, aren't gonna let Airbus anywhere near any new cargo requirement.
Ron - Sadly you hit the proverbial nail on the head. protectionism at its worst which just feeds taxpayer dollars to the Boeing and LM shareholders bank accounts. And they end up with crap second choice aircraft. Or not as they are always years late and $ Bns over budget. 'Marine One' LM / Sikorsky and Boeing KC-46 Tanker you mentioned being the perfect examples...
It's very simple. the rest of the world needs to curtail purchases of American hardware as long as the US continues to behave that way. We can't have rules that apply to us but not them.
A400M is a tactical large aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft. Not the same role, not the same ground capability. The A400M can land on a lot more ground than the C17, he need a "clean&long" ground.
In Air buses dreams, and they would have to make them in the US. Either in an Airbus plant or under license.Or do A deal say swap with europe Say 8 C17S for for 16 400Ms The C17s cold go two each to France Britian Germany and Spain.
Define more capable. C-17 has better payload, but the airfield requisites are those of a regular airliner, while the a-400M has tactical capability for small, unprepared airstrips, which enhance tremendously logistics.
A400M dont have the same role than the C17, so yes he can compete. In simple word: A400M is a large tactical aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft. If you cannot read the difference in that phrase, you are not able to judge the capability of an aircraft to "compete" with an other.
Some Airbus planes are assembled in the U.S..( $600 million Alabama factory where Airbus built jets for American, Delta, and JetBlue). I wonder if this plane could either be produced by Airbus here in U.S. or the design licenced for manufacture by a U.S. company. sort of the way F16s abd F18s were built abroad by allied countries. We need to be able to fly MBTs so we must maintain or develop a follow on to C17. With the likely future of warfare all three of these planes make a lot of sense for the U.S. as rapid deployment and air resupply have become more important than in the past.
Never happen. The problem A400M high cost of nearly 189-200 mil USD. The USAF has many expensive special mission variants of the C-130J. The cost making the A400M in those variants is way too high. Secondly, the USMC KC-130J cost 100 mil. Thats transport, tanker and gunship in one. Lastly the USCG benefits from the low cost of the HC-130J at 66 mil If the A400M had its original price 80 mil ,it would mostly definitely got the US military attention
The USAF has many expensive special mission variants of the C-130J that the A400M can't replace. So what? There will still be a place for the C-130. But there's a place for a number of A400Ms as well, since they bring some additional capabilties that no version of the C-130 will ever have.
@Kulturbeutel "here will still be a place for the C-130. But there's a place for a number of A400Ms The C-130 does all the USAFs light lifting , the C-17 handles everything else. C-5 takes what the C-17 that is order of the USAF lifters which been working great for the USAF. USMC uses the KC-130 as tanker, transport and gunship. USCG uses it for tanker/rescue operations. Both benefit from USAF purchases as it drives down unit cost ,spares and maintenance as Lockheed has a blanket contract that covers all 3. bring some additional capabilties that no version of the C-130 will ever have" the A400M besides bigger payload and cruising 100 km faster, the A400M has nothing on the C-130 As mentioned the C-130 has special mission variants which is possible due to low cost of the C-130 the A400M costs 152 mil USD, thats more than the cost of the news Ghost Rider at 115 and 13 less the EC-130 SEAD model. There are variants 6 of the C-130J and sub models the cost is not there and the USAF has plenty of capability to save
I've heard that story a hundred times. It's only true as long as you adhere to equipment limited by the box size and weight limit of the C-130. Yes, you may use your C-17s for the larger vehicles, but they're too valuable to get wasted by this in the long run. The C-130 actually limits your freedom of decision when it comes to the procurement of new and better armament. The light equipment is becoming heavier and you lose if your decisions are dictated by a 60 years old aircraft design. It's time to wake up, Jane's have understood this.
2 years later and the A400M is a broken mess and European powers are buying even more C-130s to replace it. Lol. Can't even beat a 60 year old aircraft.
Don't see it ever happening. The U.S. doesn't like buying anything for the U.S. Military outside the U.S. we don't like depending on anyone other then ourselves. Almost 99.998% of the U.S. Military is all U.S. made. We buy some from the U.K. but even that took some arm twisting.
the US uses german guns, rifles, pistols, european helicopters, canadian LAVs, british aircraft. so many of the stuff produced for the US military was developed outside the US. 99.998% doesn't sound right.
@@swunt10 okay 99.900. Guns can easily be replaced. But almost everything the U.S. military has is built here. And BTW The LAV the U.S. uses is built both in the U.S. and Canada
The only way America would buy into this aircraft is if either parts or the manufacturing of the aircraft were in part built by American, like the final assembly or partial assembly of it. I for one would like to see an American manufacturer,design-build something like the A400 but like the F-22 and the F-35, the cost overruns would be the fly in the ointment. unless our President Trump actually crafted the deal with the American Military Complex. However, those sneaky bastards would just wait until the next stupid democratic president slimed his or her or even Its way into the oval office. We Americans are a funny lot, the rest of the world should not try and figure us out, you will just get a headache and lose sleep.
Ahahahahah... sorry, I'm thinking what happened to good Alenia Spartan c27J... US generals in Afghanistan were in love with it. No matter what it was finally built in USA and not in Italy, US congress was able to find the way to cut program, better spending for infamous F35. Story ended (not in Australia and others countries). Now I'm curious about next US contest for the new jet trainer, Alenia (now Leonardo) present the T-Master... I don't want thinking bad ^^ Greetings from Italy.
Evidently those issues - like most European issues - seem to be noticed more and embellished by Americans, it's touching that you guys take such an interest but sometimes creepy.
A400M dont have the same role than the C17, so yes he can compete. In simple word: A400M is a large tactical aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft. If you cannot read the difference in that phrase, you are not able to judge the capability of an aircraft to "compete" with an other.
Pride shouldn't stand in the way of procuring an aircraft that makes strategic sense and is readily available from an aircraft developer that is a consortium of nations who are our allies. They buy a ton of our hardware so why can't we do the same to a certain degree. There would be a ton of money saved in development costs alone. Lockheed was involved in the early development of this aircraft so there is some American DNA in it if people find it to be an affront in buying European. American legacy air carriers have no issue buying from Airbus and receive little to no condemnation when they do it, so what is the issue?
So much for the great capitalist America & free trade. When it suits they protect their own markets. Old Europe just might have a good aircraft/product.
Ya , and since we USA cannot design and build a better one . Maybe we should buy a shit load of SAABDRAKEN since the American industry can't build something that good either .
This sounds like a propaganda piece or a very long, windy advertisement for the A400M. With all the gearbox and other problems this plane has had, do you really think the USAF would buy this thing? Besides, the USAF isn't the only service that flies the Herc. How about the USN, USMC and USCG? They would not be using this aircraft as they don't have the need.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & JOP) [Video Visualizador Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zoc75M8Swhc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
In the immortal words of Sir John Cleese," I'll ask him but I don't think he'll be very keen! He's already got one you see!"
The chart shown at 1:27 does make for some interesting reading. The range calculations were made with loads @ 20,000 kilo range, which has the Herc lifting 93% maximum weight, the A400M about 54% its max load and the C-17 hauling about 23% its max load. Naturally the Herc will struggle for range working at the top end of its lift capability.
That is not really interesting, but rather obvious conclusions. I fail to see your point.
If it happens, airbus will probably be required to open a plant in the US and build it here or form a joint venture with a US firm. UNLESS, this it is a very small (single squadron at most) procurement.
Airbus is already building A321's in Mobile Alabama...
John - You seem to have an enviable crystal ball there. Care to share some factual detail maybe? How are you so sure?
Airbus / EADS were going to build the A330 MRTT / KC-45 in Alabama. When they got shafted they still kept their word and built a factory for the A320 family for American customers.
There is absolutely NO reason why an A400M assembly plant could not be added if the order was big enough as they have bought enough land for expansion.
And here is a little something to consider: When the USMC bought the Harrier (or AV-8A in their parlance) all 110 were built in the UK. Production only moved to the USA (and then it was a joint production with BAE) for the Harrier II / AV-8B.
Goshawks are a joint build by Boeing with BAE as well.
John - Dear oh dear you are an annoying little shit aren't you? Precisely what is the difference between 'assembling' and 'building'? And anyway they are actually manufacturing so go chew on that ....
Building:
noun
1.
2. the action or trade of constructing something.
synonyms: construction, erection, putting up, raising, establishment, fabrication, production, ASSEMBLY
Assembly:
noun
noun: assembly; plural noun: assemblies
1.
2.
3. the action of fitting together the component parts of a machine or other object.
"a car assembly plant"
synonyms: construction, BUILDING, fabrication, MANUFACTURE, erection, setting up, putting together, fitting together, piecing together, connection, joining
a unit consisting of components that have been fitted together.
"the tail assembly of the aircraft"
Manufacture:
verb
verb: manufacture; 3rd person present: manufactures; past tense: manufactured; past participle: manufactured; gerund or present participle: manufacturing
1. make (something) on a large scale using machinery.
"firms who manufacture ball bearings"
synonyms: make, produce, mass produce, BUILD, construct, ASSEMBLE, put together, create, fabricate, prefabricate, turn out, process, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, engineer
"the company manufactures laser printers"
As 1chish point out there is no discernible difference between building and assembling. Just what are they doing in Toulouse? Pretty much the same thing as they are in Mobile, major components, many subcontracted out, are shipped to Toulouse and assembled / built into aircraft.
Keith - Give up mate he isn't open to persuasion by factual debate. given every Airbus wing is made in the UK (as are all the engines for A330neo and A350 and most of the A380s) no Airbus factory makes everything. They have an excellent policy of concentrated excellence in different places....
Please make a side by side comparison with the C130 Hercules and A400M 🙏
I say ... look at the result of KC A330/B767 contest.... A330 won but it ended upp with a B767 contract.... you will never see a A400M in a US uniform, trust me! But forcing aliies to buy F-35 by political menacing statement is ok?
Yea.
I was thinking just that. 👍
Very disappointed that Australia bought that turkey
In reality, the award to the KC45 was challenged by Boeing for very fair reasons that had nothing to do with politics. EADS/Northrop offered a lower bid, but some of the requirements weren’t met. That protest was upheld by the GAO, not USAF. That was why the bid was re-opened. At that time, EADS saw they could not actually fulfill the requirements and dropped out of the bidding, but then they changed their minds and came back in.
EADS only got that contract because they could deliver earlier and shift A330 freighter assembly to Alabama (which has nothing to do with the Air Force). In reality, that delivery price depended on the first 4 tails to be conversions from stock passenger aircraft, not purpose-built aircraft.
leonardimas1 Make your own! Who’s stopping you? By the way, that frigate contract will likely end up investigated and cancelled, given the LCS contract before it and the 3-star retired admiral who works for the manufacturer. There is almost no doubt the final price was a blatant lie given the cost of the simpler NSC Cutter made by the same.
Given the climate in the US, there is absolutely no chance of this happening. Even if, say the President, were to consider that this would be no big deal, and the Pentagon too, the American public would not accept such a high profile vehicle being purchased from Europe. This is a nonstarter.
Desertfox - Its a freighter. Its hardly 'high profile' like an F-35 but even then large chunks of that are built in the UK!
+1chish Anytime we try to predict the future, we're running a significant risk of being wrong. I'm not going to say that you couldn't be right. You could be right, but I think there's a significant difference, symbolically, between buying an American plane, with pieces built by allies (especially a very close ally), and buying a foreign aircraft of this magnitude.
+OceanBlue I think you've already shown exactly what I mean about the climate in the US. By that, I mean the general consensus that is the "Buy American" idea. This is pretty common in the US, and especially true for anything military. That's my point, and while something like this could conceivably fly in the US under very favorable conditions, no such conditions exist in the US currently.
+OceanBlue
Oh look its an American Patriot trying to compare different aircraft built for entirely different purposes!
Problem is Old Son is that C-17 was so good that Boeing shut the production line down. And for those that were built yes it lifts more weight but has less volume and can't go where the A400M can.
As for the C-130 being a better aircraft well sorry it isn't. It doesn't carry the same payload or volume of cargo the A400M can. It can't even carry your own Stryker vehicles! An A400M can and has done as the RAF proved recently.
And the C-5 is a very big aircraft thats for sure. But it can't even go where the C-17 can and no chance doing what an A400M can in unprepared areas.
But hey as long as you believe 'MURICAAA' is best well great ....
IMHO it depends on the numbers: If the US needs a lot of them, they will produce something in house. If they need some of them to meet some strategic need, they may purchase them abroad.
New Zealand needs this. We have to knock bits off our LAV's and shoehorn them into C-130's to get them anywhere! The capacity, or increasing lack thereof, is a drawback of the C-130. Going forward, actually right now, we need that extra capacity.
Unfortunately, we are contractually and politically intricately tied into the US military system.
Where exactly are you going on those C-130s? Nothing is within short reach of NZ, which is why you should have bought C-17s.
Not a chance. If the US military decides it needs an outsize cargo tactical freighter, Lockheed Martin will simply dust off plans for the C-130XL and deliver that niche capability at an even lower price. It was customer disinterest that shelved that project, not any failings in the design itself.
america cant do low price !
I don't entirely see the US' purchase of A400M aircraft as all that likely. I can't think of a single aircraft currently in the US' fleet which comes from a foreign manufacturer.
Michael Lenoch
A-29. UH-72. HC-144. C-27J. C-145. C-212.
Knowledge helps.
John Hall
Several are currently deployed...in combat.
simple, Airbus can sell licensing right to Boeing or LM to manufacture in US as joint venture project.
Why doesn't Europe buy the Kawaskai C-2? It is a superior product than the A400M Albatross. The Europeans don't know how to make competitive planes and in 20 years China will be all over Airbus.
USCG usually gets stuck with that crap. HH65 Dolphins, Agusta and HC144 (Airbus CN 235).
As Steven Tyler said, "DREAM OOON!"
Oh yeah, and that’s why European countries are ordering the C-130J like France. When the gear boxes of those engines are finally fixed, you may offer the plane to us, with the certainty that we will not buy any because we really don’t need it.
C130J is purchase for the special force, because actually the A400M lacks the refuel of helicopter(In development).
When you want to troll, take care with your infos ;)
They buy like 3 in total
@@Sedna063 along with France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Italy and UK, are the European countries that have placed 48 orders all together for the C-130J.
@@polduseri909 Denmark, Norway, Italy weren't part of the A400 consortium in the beginning.
Framce bought 4 C130-J.
Germany bought 6.
UK bought some, I couldn't find how many.
In any case, those nations that bought the A400 M didn't buy more than 15 in total.
@@Sedna063 You are so funny, trying to make numbers you don’t remember to make appear that nobody in Europe is interested in the C-130J. Here are purchases of the Hercules in its “J” variant for the three of the four countries involved in the development and production of the A400: UK: 14, Germany: 6, and France: 4. Total: 24 planes. Do you research and then come back with facts not with memories.
I wonder if it will be used for ground support like the Hercules.
I finished my USAF career in the C-130, it is my personal opinion that the current fleet is not enough for expeditionary warfare.
The A-400 is an awesome airplane. Maybe if they were built in Mobile, AL? Personally I think they should buy 747 freighters, but that won’t be an option soon.
Why no mention of the AN70. I am certain if a US Company approached Antonov they would gladly go into partnership with them if the USA wants a new transport. They have solved the engine problem. The fact the AN70 has better range for payload confirms that. The now relatively older designed airframe could easily be upgraded with a US partner and any avionics etc. the USA wanted put in it. If I remember correctly that is what Germany wanted to do but the French and Britain would not agree.
NOT HAPPENING...IS A DREAM ON ALL THE WAY!!
...remeber the tanker-'contest'?
The Airbus was the MUCH better plane...
...but Boeing was american...!
(but the US had to bend the rules 2 times to help Boeing win)
Indeed.
The TSR2 was ~20years ahead of its time.
It wasn't before the 1980s, when there was with the Tornado a plane of similar performance...
UHHHH NOOOOO, it wasn't and the RFP bid response was rightfully challenged because buying the AIRBUS would have meant the USAF would have had to spend BILLIONS MORE on MILITARY CONSTRUCTION on Air bases in the USA and around the world to support the Additional weight of the fully loaded AIRBUS TANKERS. I'll bet that was never mentioned by your government controlled media in Europe. Oh and let's not forget that AIRBUS has had many problems getting their refueling booms to fly and transfer fuel whereas BOEING has been doing it quite well since the late 1940s - another inconvenient FACT you EUROTRASH DELIBERATELY OVERLOOK.
Oh really you pansy? What are you going to do about it? Kick my ass? You are a joke. AIRBUS is subsidized by your national governments. BOEING has to stand on its own. And don't try to pass off that tired crap that the defense sector of Boeing subsidizes the commercial. That tired story is fantasy because the majority of Boeing's business and revenue is commercially based. Boeing defense sector is actually shrinking due to declining defense budgets in the USA.
Guys, Paul Connors is a quack, just look at his tinfoil-hat theories concerning the media just because they don't stick their nose up Trump's arse. I suppose we Europeans must also be in control of CNN and MSNBC too. Ignore him and just converse with grownups.
Paul Connor....Boeing has received billions in subsidies in the form of tax breaks!
I think one risk is that one of the US manufacturers will try to sell something new based on blended-wing-body and or hybrid propulsion as a way to get the military to pay for developing technology or even a complete aeroplane that can then be used for civil aircraft. This, obviously, would be exceedingly expensive but things like the 747 got developed in similar ways.
Yes the Usa will buy the boeing737 supercargo -double advantage :freighter cum dive bomber!
This why BOING is so desperate to get their hands on EMBRAER for the KC-390
Boeing only went after civilian Embraer operations (E-Series jets) to compete in the regional market against Airbus’ Bombardier purchase. The military and business jet manufacturing would stay with Embraer. You need to read more!
What are all of you smoking...
exactly
Same old story with you lot.
Not American so must be crap.
Got news for you.
You're not the only country that can build good aircraft.
@@gazza2933 No the U.S. isn't the only country to. Make good aircrt. But you must not be an American. You see the U.S. Military doesn't like to depend on other countries for military hardware.
EUROPE should look to there E.U. buddies. The U.S. has it own military manufacturing here and build by our own people and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. That's the way we like it.
New Sheriff in town. Obama sold the U.S. out but TRUMP has said 🇺🇸 AMERICA FIRST 🇺🇸. And that's the way we want it. No more putting us in the back sit and looking to help everyone else.
@@78.BANDIT I hope your stupidity is not typical of the average US resident. Somehow I hardly doubt it, might do you good to get yourself a passport . . .
c-130j-30 have 4425km @ 18.14ton
Never, ever happen. The A400M has so many issues, and the USA has better airlifters already (C-17, for example) and is developing new ones. Ask the Germans how well they like their A400M (when they are actually operational). In fact, there are many in the Luftwaffe who said that they made a huge mistake and should have gotten the C-17 instead.
Actually they like them very much. Obviously Airbus had problems but tbh, it was their first trial for a cargo aircraft for military. Meanwhile Boeing can't even modify a tanker.
@@Sedna063 What an Airbus "fan-boy" you are...
@@AgentPepsi1 I am one. I do not deny this. But consider, would I want my tax euros spend in Europe or would I want a few billions to go over the great pond to finance the wages of US citizens?
The US does exactly the same thing and went with a subpar design for a tanker that needs longer than 10 years to develop and has such quality control issues that the AF doesn't accept them.
Meanwhile the A330 MRTT was a proven design, has beaten the KC46 in almost every competition for tankers and operates flawlessly.
There are talks that the KC-10s will be replaced by Airbus.
Military procurement is industrial politics. Finally Europe can make their own large scale aviation projects.
It would have to be built here. Under US law, all military equipment had to be built in the USA. We bought the HK-416 in the form of the M-27 and the Piranha III in the form of the Stryker, but they’re all made here.
M27 isn't made in the US.
And how will you make the those aircraft perfom short take offs and short landings? The A380, can not be converted to a freighter, the upper floor can not handle weight, and the airframe will not accept a cargo door. So how do you think it would work as a military transport?
No way. America already has excellent airlift aircraft with the C-17 and C-130J.
The C-17 is great but it needs better runways than the A400M. The C-130J is a modern enough aircraft but more of a special mission deal than a transport. The equipment gets larger and heavier all the time, even an IFV or APC is 15 to 30 metric tonnes.
Building basic runways to support larger aircraft is a cheaper and better option.
WHy do you comment when you clearly didn't watch the video.
@@stupidburp Explain how you want to build bigger runways in far away places in a viable way. Not to mention how that is supposed to be cheaper.
@@bzdtemp Most overseas air bases are occupied for decades. The runway itself is not that expensive, it is the supporting hardware and buildings that bring costs up. Larger aircraft tend to be more more economically efficient for delivering cargo. Fewer trips and/or fewer aircraft are required to move the same volume of cargo. This results in less spent on aircraft acquisition, maintenance, fuel, personnel, and the support required for more personnel. The cost over time to build more large runways with a smaller number of larger aircraft is much less than the cost for many small aircraft on small runways to accomplish the same mission. A runway and some support for it is required either way, the extra runway length and load limit is a relatively small additional cost compared to the billions spent on the total cost of ownership for more aircraft. The runways are already built by contract in remote areas, the locations are not a problem for the size of the runway as long as it is not on a tiny island. Even many tiny island bases have had sufficient length for many large aircraft and the construction was completed without any serious issues.
Why would the USA want the A400M? IT'S A MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE!!! Besides the C-130J is still extremely capable in still being produced in the USA! C-130J has been CONTINOUSLY UPGRADED AND VERY RUGGED AND RELIABLE!!! A400M will be a liability in time of war.
If a compelling US production agreement could be negotiated, I hope that the DOD and Congress would find a way purchase and integrate the A400M into the US Armed Forces logistical support structure. It's just a personal opinion but, I really feel that this platform would compliment and bolster our ability to "deliver the goods" no matter what.
The belugas are not designed to lift heavy loads, just large structures. Wings, and fuselage sections are large, but not heavy. Freighters need to be able to carry weight.
If Airbus convinces RNZAF that this is the plane for both tactical and strategic when we decide our replacements later this year, that's 8 planes. Considering we were considering C17 only a few years ago, I think a better fit than the C130J
The schedule for Paris this year had a C-130 within 15 minutes EVERY time the A400m went up (either the C-130J or the new civilian freighter). One thing they did keep a little quiet, it has in the past pointed out that the A400 is FIVE YEAS LATE AND NEARLY 40% OVER BUDGET, which is being eaten by the countries involved. The British were forced to buy Herkybirds due to late deliveries.
fooman2108 - I think you will find they leased 4 C-17s as a stopgap in 2004 not Hercs. They eventually ordered more C-17s even though the A400M was then in production and bought the leased aircraft in addition to the A400M orders. We now have 15 A400Ms of 21 ordered and 8 C-17s
Think if you look some the Herky's are J-models.
No. All of the RAF's 'herkybirds', (who the f##k calls them that), are J models. They entered service around 1999. Late, over budget, and frankly, at the beginning, shit. Way before the A400M. The original C-130's purchased by the RAF where retired about 5 years ago, after 40 odd years of service. And please dont forget, the USAF originally called the C-17 BUDDHA. Because it was fat, useless and sat on the ground all day, but everybody worshipped it! Eventually, the C-17 became the aircraft it is today, even though many people in Congress and the Pentagon wanted to scrap it!! The A400M WILL become a great aircraft, I know, I work on it. Yes it is over budget, yes it has problems, although to be fair, it is the engines that are the biggest problem and they are not produced by Airbus.The septics will never buy it because it is European, check out the tanker renewal debacle if you dont believe me, changing the rules, buying the aircraft the USAF didnt want, and if you want to look at cost over-runs look no further than Boeings KC-46 Pegasus!
Nearly everyone I know calls them some variety of Herk or Herkybird. LOL. We'll just have to agree to disagree over the government manufactured Airbooos. I do know that in nearly 63 years if you managed to break a herky then you have managed to achieve something. Also, when you pull aircraft off a production line and have to retrofit them to customer (RAF) specs for an 'emergency' order (the A400 was NOT available due to delayed deliveries) it takes TIME. USAF/USMC/USN/USCG do NOT have refueling capability and a different set of electronics that RAF models. The equivalent would be me taking a Chevrolet Suburban and armoring and fitting it for the PM (not that he would have one LOL), it would take time and cost money.
fooman - Only comment I want to make is that the A400M is not a "government manufactured Airbooos". Airbus is a private company and even the WTO had to disagree with Boeing when it made a complaint about 'subsidies'. Pointing out that Boeing was unfairly subsidised by State tax breaks, US Government military funding overspills and NASA free gratis and for nothing research.
So I think we could safely say that Boeing is more 'government' than is Airbus. the only area Airbus got pulled up on was the rates of interest it arranged through the markets.
Good luck with that one. Airbus needs to focus on hanging on to the customers it already supposedly has and actually delivering their aircraft before they drop their orders.
America with Europe.
Stars and bars?
Surprise ! The South won the civil war.
The only Foreign Airlifter with any chance with the USAF is the Embraer KC-390 which has been teamed up with Boeing and is also closer to being a true replacement for the C-130
I honestly don't see that happening. At least not under this presidency and Congress.
Airbus can sell it to Asia if the price is reasonable.
If this plane was considered, why not the An - 70? It is less than half of the Airbus cost. It can be built with Western Avionics, Western Engines. It is built in the Ukraine, and as far as I know, the An -70 & An-124 are good transport & cargo aircraft which cost less than Airbus. I do not believe the US would be willing to purchase foreign made aircraft, but now days, who knows? I know Boeing & Lockheed would raise Hell about it.
What does the A400M give us that either the C-17 or C-130 can't do for the price (exclusive of EU bail-in)?
tactically transporting heavy armored vehicles. the c-130 is too small and can't take the heavy payload and the c17 too big to land on anything other than a runway which isn't very tactical.
In simple word ?
A400M is a tactical large aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft.
Not the same role, not the same ground capability.
No way in hell... (least that's what all the heads of american current manufacturers are saying!)
I love how polarized people are on this. It's just business...
Defense isn’t just business. It’s also international politics.
Perhaps a replacement for RNZAF c130h due for retirement
I just hope South Africa orders this aircraft again.
They'll have their work cut out for them if they want to convince the Air Force.
The A400 does seem to fill a gap. I wonder why such a plane was not conceived and designed by Lockheed or Boeing??
When you get much larger than a C-130 for use on unprepared airfields the risk to damaging the runway and damaging the aircraft increases from the larger weight loads on soft surfaces. USAF prefers to just build a basic paved or temporary hard surface runway when larger aircraft are needed. This allows use by a variety of large jets with higher capacities and capabilities than the A400.
C-17 ended production. who knows maybe the A400M will be used by the USA in the future
The US government will never hand multi-billion dollar defence contracts to anyone but an American company. Corporate welfare is obviously way more important than anything else.
Good luck if you can sell a single unit
They sold 174 as per now 😂
@@daijirokatoh3769
To the US?
@@sidharthcs2110 oh ok I thought you meant in general. It is still the most successful transport aircraft since its introduction, better than the American C130J
@@daijirokatoh3769
Well , the video ia about America and this jet.
That was the context
Perhaps Kawasaki C-2 is better otion for USAF. SImilar cargolit as A400M but uses jet engines and is faster.
I wonder if Trump would award a tanker contract to Tupolev-- wouldnt put it past him, imjustsayin'
Bozo Clown .....smh...I wont give up on American Industry.
Using logic in an illogical situation. HIGHLY unlikely, even if it makes sense, that the USAF would buy an overseas aircraft.
For target practice!
Even if the USAF buys it, at €150+ per plane, would they really risk sending it to "austere tactical environments"? And would they buy from Boeing's biggest competitor? Maybe it would be politically more palatable to buy from someone who's not a major aircraft manufacturer. Something like the Kawasaki C-2 or even the Embraer KC-390 perhaps?
I was part of the team of suppliers for the A380, spent months in Broughton and Toulouse supporting the program. The original plan for the A380 was that they would be converted to freighters after they were turned back from lease. But structural analysis indicated that the modifications needed to beef up the upper floor and cargo door areas were not practical, and the idea was scrapped. They could haul light freight, but the aircraft will be very expensive to operate like this, and won't be able to compete against smaller twin engine aircraft. Their is at least one A380 parked in storage already.
I'd rather see the US buy the Kawasaki C2, especially license built by Lockheed.
The U.S. has every right to source their planes at home... Why doesn't the E.U. have that same attitude?, all those F-35 bought from the U.S. when there could be an European alternative...
About the F35 sales in UE, you can learn something with some reading about the AMGOT.
Next, despite the "Union", we dont have a federal states in Europe, and when you want to talk about defense, "NATO" is the only word you can heard with the countries of the AMGOT and eastern Europe.
Todays we can see a lot of advance on that point (defense and defense industries), but we always have a lot of problem.
France and Germany are the 2 biggest country of the EU (with the Brexit), so they must be the base of the European defense... Except...
France has all of the specter of industrial and technology in defense, now, she is the only nuclear power of UE, the only thing she needs, it's the money €€€.
France is always in "war" since the WW2 (like the USA) we are everywhere in the world (France is not only the France of UE, it's the French Guyana, the French polynesia, New Caledonia, Mayotte... A lot of thing in the world... The 2nd economic area !)
In the other side, German is a continental power, very industrial, very rich, but chocked since the end of the WW2 (in fact since 91), she dont want to become a war machine again, so she lets others country (NATO) take the responsability of war.
That become to change a little, but only for the German side, the French government and industrial let the German take some part of the cake for having a common defense market/industry. It's highly risky and complicated.
French is a big weapons exporter, with flexible rules, when German (they are big too) try to restrain to the minimum.
...
I dont write everything so just.... It's complicated, because of our common history, different vision of the future, federalist versus sovereignity.
We can say more with the 2 next big project between French and German with the MGCS (Main Ground Combat System, next gen tank for replace Leclerc and Leopard II) and the SCAF(For replace Typhoon and Rafale).
Interesting!!
That aircraft have proven how good it is, and could fill in where there is a need for heavy lifting of troops, and cargo, but the aircraft would probably have to be built here in this country though to employ our workers. The company could use some closed airbase to use to build and test the aircraft. The C-130J will be in service for a long time, and the military could use more aircraft for use in this country, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Is this another one of those Simpsons cartoon moments... "the face of the American airforce, the pride of America, the British Harrier jump jet!!" Lol. (Before leaving angry replies, it's just a joke)
If the Air Force was smart they could have a capable aircraft in the A400M at a bargain price. I expect some day in the distant future a US domestic military contractor will develop something similar to the A400M at triple the price. You could build a factory and produce the aircraft in the United States and the Europeans could buy 50 C-17's to help balance the trade.
The C17 is not produce today...
In fact we should be happy with not the C17 but a fleet of C5 galaxy ! (It's can be a good project for the NATO, a new gen UltraHeavy Strategic cargo)
Beautiful aircraft, just hope it has a much larger range on a full tank and we actually acquire it.
Yeah. Right. We're going to go back to a turboprop "airlifter".
much better than jet for military.
The USAF will NEVER buy this aircraft - ZERO CHANCE.
Bill. There is simply no need for the A400, and ZERO CHANCE that USAF would purchase it.
@Bill J
she is correct, it has zero chance. The USAF needs are being met by the C-130J , C-17 and C-5. They are developing their next lifter which has design requirements that A400M can not meet.
as for Izno comments, 90 percent bullshit , 10 percent ish reality, Boeing did not say the C-17 was killed by the A400M. The C-17 is heavy weight lifter and all the air forces that needed have it or use something else in place. The MRTT is only replacing the French KC-135 and that's it. The A380F only as 7 percent more payload the than 747-8F and 12 more than the C-5
which is marginal at best. The C-130J is not any danger, it sits at 300 orders to the A400M's 179. More to the point between 2005 till January 2017, zero orders. Both French and German are ordering the C-130J. Spain and Germany both are trying to rid of 13 each. Germany ended leasing them. Airbus has not made any AWACS or ECM planes.
and the rest of his post is more nonsense with few actual facts. the Frances exports sub, the US does not. The Mistral can not be enlarged ,more to point the Mistrals lower cost and build is because they forgo the ability to support jets
Even DEVGRU and USMC buy H&K or FN riffles? I seriously wonder if this nimrod thinks before he writes
the military buy all types of weapons , including russian and chinese for operations of plausible deniability.
everything else no mentioned is nonsense he like to make up
Izno... without the US, there is no "EU defense", the Europeans are an impotent, 90 pound weakling - and always have been.
@AgentPepsi1
a better statement would the EU relies heavily on US support. Naval wise, the EU is severely lacking in surface combatants. they rely heavily on small frigates. They are cheaper to build however they lack survivabillity against larger surface combatants. The EU has few Nuclear powered subs, just France and the UK, everyone else is diesel ,AIP again cheaper however the lack endurance and weapons. The EU has more carriers than Russia, however Russia and EU are land locked so they march through. So in a hypothetical war with Russia , the EU would be at a disadvantage. France and the UK subs are the only ones capable of long range land attack. same with surface ships. so contrary to what Izno thinks, the EU can not take on Russia or China in a conflict
@
Izno Iznogoud
First the EU does not have 2000 jets. its closer 1400. secondly the 16 US bases in the EU says otherwise. Without US C-17s and C-5. The RAF is only country in the EU with heavy lifter abilites via 8 C-17. artillery like the panzerhauitze 2000 which weights 55 ton and AS-90 45 ton and main battle tanks cannot be transported by the A400M
No EU made heavy lifter. with out the US, the EU has little chance. FREMM ,there are just 4 and stealth frigates are still no match for larger surface combatants.
lets see FREMM frigates have Aster missiles which max out 74 miles for ship borne model, Exocets,and SCALP missile in 48 cell. That 8-9 ton destroyer packs 3 times the fire power as the does the Zumwalt with just her 80 VLS. Unlike the EU, the US pays the cost for extra firepower.
"Remember how the USS Stark got owned by old Exocets" you are literally incapable of fact checking
the Stark was hit in 1987, the Exocet was still a modern missile at that time. more to the point the Exocet is carried by Fremm frigates currently
second the USS Stark took two hits and still stayed afloat.
"When you know how US fleets were ridiculed by EU diesel or AIP subs on every drill." The concept of training completely obvious to you
navlog.org/asw_feb06.html- The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against modern diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking. you are making light of the fact that US recognizes its problems and are actually fixing it. The Navy screwed up when they left go of the S-3
"Some AIP can stay underwater up to 3 weeks, this is actually not really pussy." nuclear powered subs can stay under 3 months plus
MdCN- only one sub class can launch this missile
www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/secret-data-on-india-s-scorpene-class-submarines-leaked-report/story-PqS96Ob4G5tGY088F07tzH.html
The nimitz carries up to 130 planes , what the does the de gaulle carry againt
and like all your post
the rest is nonsense. The DEAC is a concept that has yet to gain any traction, the US has 11 carriers for reason dumbass, its called redundancy. The zircon and brahmoss II are coming at time when US is fitting laser CIWS to its ships
www.janes.com/article/68550/usn-plans-accelerated-laser-weapon-fit-on-ddg-51-flight-iia-destroyer
This video was published in August 2017.... As of today in June 2020 It's still not true. I don't even think it's gonna be true anytime soon....
What is Europe called now. Europeistan.
Let's hope ithis is correct from a British Europhile.
Not going to happen. The only reason to take on a new cargo plane is to lift the big tank, everything else is covered by current, in production A/C.
The video clearly mentioned it: The C17 can't go where the A400M can. A runway for the A400M can be built by Army Pioneers during morning excercises, the C17 needs a paved runway.
A400M dont have the same role than the C17, so yes he can compete.
In simple word:
A400M is a large tactical aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft.
If you cannot read the difference in that phrase, you are not able to judge the capability of an aircraft to "compete" with an other.
We dodged the bullet here, the A400M the program is a disaster. This program is screwed up and they cant afford to fix it.
Shut up
The A400M could replace both the C17 and C130J over time as aircraft are retired.
This thing is hampered with massive engine problems and structural problems. The German A400Ms stil do not work properly. The program has massive delays. It also doesnt make too much strategic sense for the US to buy foreign military goods of that magnitude.
Rubashow - Sorry you are talking the same bullcrap your mate John Hall is. What "massive engine problems"? List and identify each one. There has been the one fatal crash on a test flight in Spain involving engine issues because of incorrect fitting / settings of three engine modules. There are no other engine issues.
There were some random gearbox issues in 2015 / 2016 with 14 propellers on equipment supplied by General Electric. They were traced and fixed by the supplier and no aircraft were removed from service
What "structural problems." Again list and identify each one. Do you mean the one known cracking behaviour that had already been identified during quality control checks in 2011 and found in an aluminium fuselage part of a French A400M? A condition that did not result in any groundings and that could be corrected in normal maintenance.
The RAF have 15, of 22 on order, operating with no major failures or indeed delays during acceptance / bedding in flights.
So your 'massive' means one engine module failure (FADEC) in one and one previously known cracking condition in another?
You need to check your use of language pal ....
The British SAS refuse to use it, preferring the ancient C130. The RAF are not at all impressed with it right now.
I was thinking 'ancient' in concept. C130 first flight, 1954. A400 first flight 2009. I know that the C130s have gone through endless updates but, even so, it is not good that the SAS won't consider using the A400.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The special forces use the C-130 because it has been tested and adapted for the task. Right now, the RAF have had the A400M for about 3 years, it is still being introduced into service. They have just started doing low level work and NVG training, this year. The crews are inexperienced in A400M operations compared to the C-130 crews. The plan has always been to use the A400M as a transport aircraft until sufficient aircraft and crews and equipment are available to train in the very specialist tasks that the 47SF crews already undertake. Where are you making up this BS about the SAS refusing to use it? It isnt ready, spec'ed or equipped to do SF work, so I would imagine most people would 'refuse' to work with it, not just the SAS!
I was told by a C17 fitter in the RAF....
Not happening. C-130 a well build proven workhorse for 66 years!
Yet vehicles keep getting bigger and C130 arent wide enough to fit those new vehicles.
Ah, no. Never happen. This airplane is going backwards for the USAF. The service is looking at BWB for it's large aircraft.
although highly unlikely there is a chance. giving americans a greater piece of the pie going forward can make a lot of changes. If they agree to final assembly in the USA like they currently do with the UH-72, A321, and previously the KC-45 then it can happen. If you partner with a company like L-3 to market the aircraft then it's a possibility. The more likely option is the USSOCOM. Give special forces the option to evaluate the aircraft and they may buy some in small quantities like they already do with BAE aircraft and older german designs.
Never happening.Apart from its cost and overdue target fulfilment it is not made by the USA.America should develop its own plane if the C130 etc are not sufficient.That is assuming this niche actually exists.Some would say Airbus has classically developed a solution to a non existent problem
An American investment fund, bought Lagarde shares in Airbus, right? 25% of Airbus ...
First of all, the computer synth voices half these videos have these days is more exciting to listen to than this guy reading his pre-written essay. Secondly, aint gonna happen. Consider the AW101 Merlin helicopter, & the A330 MRTT. Both won selection for the US armed forces, when selected by the armed forces, but Congress killed them. Instead, Sikorsky built a whole new chopper for marine one & Boeing has supposedly reinvented the 767 for the new tanker requirement. I'm pretty sure Boeing & Lockheed, & the US Government that sponsors them, aren't gonna let Airbus anywhere near any new cargo requirement.
Ron - Sadly you hit the proverbial nail on the head. protectionism at its worst which just feeds taxpayer dollars to the Boeing and LM shareholders bank accounts. And they end up with crap second choice aircraft. Or not as they are always years late and $ Bns over budget. 'Marine One' LM / Sikorsky and Boeing KC-46 Tanker you mentioned being the perfect examples...
It's very simple. the rest of the world needs to curtail purchases of American hardware as long as the US continues to behave that way. We can't have rules that apply to us but not them.
Why don't these countries buying the a 400 just buy the c-17 it's much better in every way.
A400M is a tactical large aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft.
Not the same role, not the same ground capability.
The A400M can land on a lot more ground than the C17, he need a "clean&long" ground.
Why do Americans not buy the A330 MRTT which is proven and working fine? Same reason, defence spending should be spend at home.
@@Tagadarealty C17 Globemaster 3 is light?
@@nezmustafa4271 If you compare with the C5.
In other word:
C17 = Small C5
A400M = Big C130
@@Tagadarealty Yeah but the c17 is larger than the a400m, can carry more paratroopers.
Replace C130!! Unless there a gunship version, it will not replace C130.
In Air buses dreams, and they would have to make them in the US. Either in an Airbus plant or under license.Or do A deal say swap with europe Say 8 C17S for for 16 400Ms The C17s cold go two each to France Britian Germany and Spain.
Or A400Ms go to the US forces in Europe in return for Germany buying F18s, Ch53Ks and improved Patriot missiles, as currently planned ...
Nope this would never happen in America Boeing is better and the C-130 is just fine
Make it a gunship. That will make the generals drool. Guns, cannon, glide bombs, and future laser weapons. Take out fighters, vehicles, and drones.
too big for a gunship, the small of the C130 is perfect... Maybe the KC390 ?
No Chance! C-17 is simply the more capable Transporter!
Define more capable. C-17 has better payload, but the airfield requisites are those of a regular airliner, while the a-400M has tactical capability for small, unprepared airstrips, which enhance tremendously logistics.
A400M dont have the same role than the C17, so yes he can compete.
In simple word:
A400M is a large tactical aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft.
If you cannot read the difference in that phrase, you are not able to judge the capability of an aircraft to "compete" with an other.
@@Tagadarealty Kawaskai C-2 is wipes the floor with the A400M Albatross.
Some Airbus planes are assembled in the U.S..( $600 million Alabama factory where Airbus built jets for American, Delta, and JetBlue). I wonder if this plane could either be produced by Airbus here in U.S. or the design licenced for manufacture by a U.S. company. sort of the way F16s abd F18s were built abroad by allied countries. We need to be able to fly MBTs so we must maintain or develop a follow on to C17. With the likely future of warfare all three of these planes make a lot of sense for the U.S. as rapid deployment and air resupply have become more important than in the past.
Never happen. The problem A400M high cost of nearly 189-200 mil USD. The USAF has many expensive special mission variants of the C-130J. The cost making the A400M in those variants is way too high. Secondly, the USMC KC-130J cost 100 mil. Thats transport, tanker and gunship in one. Lastly the USCG benefits from the low cost of the HC-130J at 66 mil
If the A400M had its original price 80 mil ,it would mostly definitely got the US military attention
Izno Iznogoud
the amount in is USD
@zno Iznogoud
cost is the factor ,and the savings for the US are not there
The USAF has many expensive special mission variants of the C-130J that the A400M can't replace. So what? There will still be a place for the C-130. But there's a place for a number of A400Ms as well, since they bring some additional capabilties that no version of the C-130 will ever have.
@Kulturbeutel
"here will still be a place for the C-130. But there's a place for a
number of A400Ms
The C-130 does all the USAFs light lifting , the C-17 handles everything else. C-5 takes what the C-17
that is order of the USAF lifters which been working great for the USAF. USMC uses the KC-130 as tanker, transport and gunship. USCG uses it for tanker/rescue operations. Both benefit from USAF purchases as it drives down unit cost ,spares and maintenance as Lockheed has a blanket contract that covers all 3.
bring some additional capabilties
that no version of the C-130 will ever have"
the A400M besides bigger payload and cruising 100 km faster, the A400M has nothing on the C-130
As mentioned the C-130 has special mission variants which is possible due to low cost of the C-130
the A400M costs 152 mil USD, thats more than the cost of the news Ghost Rider at 115 and 13 less the EC-130 SEAD model. There are variants 6 of the C-130J and sub models
the cost is not there and the USAF has plenty of capability to save
I've heard that story a hundred times. It's only true as long as you adhere to equipment limited by the box size and weight limit of the C-130. Yes, you may use your C-17s for the larger vehicles, but they're too valuable to get wasted by this in the long run. The C-130 actually limits your freedom of decision when it comes to the procurement of new and better armament. The light equipment is becoming heavier and you lose if your decisions are dictated by a 60 years old aircraft design. It's time to wake up, Jane's have understood this.
2 years later and the A400M is a broken mess and European powers are buying even more C-130s to replace it. Lol. Can't even beat a 60 year old aircraft.
Obviously don't know the US military history in weapon procurement..starting with the revolutionary war
Don't see it ever happening. The U.S. doesn't like buying anything for the U.S. Military outside the U.S. we don't like depending on anyone other then ourselves.
Almost 99.998% of the U.S. Military is all U.S. made. We buy some from the U.K. but even that took some arm twisting.
the US uses german guns, rifles, pistols, european helicopters, canadian LAVs, british aircraft. so many of the stuff produced for the US military was developed outside the US. 99.998% doesn't sound right.
@@swunt10 okay 99.900. Guns can easily be replaced. But almost everything the U.S. military has is built here. And BTW The LAV the U.S. uses is built both in the U.S. and Canada
Nice clickbait.
The only way America would buy into this aircraft is if either parts or the manufacturing of the aircraft were in part built by American, like the final assembly or partial assembly of it. I for one would like to see an American manufacturer,design-build something like the A400 but like the F-22 and the F-35, the cost overruns would be the fly in the ointment.
unless our President Trump actually crafted the deal with the American Military Complex. However, those sneaky bastards would just wait until the next stupid democratic president slimed his or her or even Its way into the oval office. We Americans are a funny lot, the rest of the world should not try and figure us out, you will just get a headache and lose sleep.
Ahahahahah... sorry, I'm thinking what happened to good Alenia Spartan c27J... US generals in Afghanistan were in love with it. No matter what it was finally built in USA and not in Italy, US congress was able to find the way to cut program, better spending for infamous F35. Story ended (not in Australia and others countries). Now I'm curious about next US contest for the new jet trainer, Alenia (now Leonardo) present the T-Master... I don't want thinking bad ^^ Greetings from Italy.
LMAOOO this are any of you aware of the issues this thing is causing in europe? XDD
Evidently those issues - like most European issues - seem to be noticed more and embellished by Americans, it's touching that you guys take such an interest but sometimes creepy.
Not a chance, the M400 can't compete with the C-17. We have no need for the M400.
A400M dont have the same role than the C17, so yes he can compete.
In simple word:
A400M is a large tactical aircraft where the C17 is a light strategic aircraft.
If you cannot read the difference in that phrase, you are not able to judge the capability of an aircraft to "compete" with an other.
@@Tagadarealty The A400M can't compete with the Kawaskai C-2 let alone the C17.
@@scottross5495 The Kawasakai C-2 dont have half of the landing capability of the A400M...
Saving European jobs is not a high priority to the US.
Pride shouldn't stand in the way of procuring an aircraft that makes strategic sense and is readily available from an aircraft developer that is a consortium of nations who are our allies. They buy a ton of our hardware so why can't we do the same to a certain degree. There would be a ton of money saved in development costs alone. Lockheed was involved in the early development of this aircraft so there is some American DNA in it if people find it to be an affront in buying European. American legacy air carriers have no issue buying from Airbus and receive little to no condemnation when they do it, so what is the issue?
Dream on Janes and Airbus. Not going to happen.
It will never happen.
So much for the great capitalist America & free trade. When it suits they protect their own markets. Old Europe just might have a good aircraft/product.
I smell BS.
Ya , and since we USA cannot design and build a better one . Maybe we should buy a shit load of SAABDRAKEN since the American industry can't build something that good either .
n o w a y
Don't buy European. all our European aircraft don't go combat or don't work MRH90 or Eurocopter Tiger and others. I say buy GB or USA.
GB is a member of the A400M consortium.....
@@Sedna063 I was talking about Australia Defence Force.
Wishful thinking.
This sounds like a propaganda piece or a very long, windy advertisement for the A400M. With all the gearbox and other problems this plane has had, do you really think the USAF would buy this thing? Besides, the USAF isn't the only service that flies the Herc. How about the USN, USMC and USCG? They would not be using this aircraft as they don't have the need.