A400M

[ThunderBox]

Agree, whilst my neighbour was looking forward to a faster comfier aircraft, he never complained about the C-130 and it wasn’t why he signed up or continued to serve, you don’t always miss something you don’t have.

Unless you are French and the C-17

 

[Sexton Blake]

Agree, whilst my neighbour was looking forward to a faster comfier aircraft, he never complained about the C-130 and it wasn’t why he signed up or continued to serve, you don’t always miss something you don’t have.

Strong possibility I know/knew your neighbour.

Funny thing is the amount of serious chuntering and full on rivalry that was about when we had the C130K v C130J split.

I remember vividly the arguments that the J would never do what the K could.

Fast forward to now and the Atlas will never do what the J could.

Again, not arguing with any recent posts above. It is a complex issue but history does tend to repeat!

 

[triggerigger]

Logistic and general how big how fast and was it a good idea issues aside,
Is it fixed yet ? Or is it a basket case like the us fast littoral combat ships? I see them flying around brize and they look nifty . A bigger faster modern c130 always sounded like a good idea.

 

[Cromarty]

Trouble is, or rather part of the trouble is, once the Govt decide to slash something than Defense simply has to suck it up and get on with it.

Without me going to Google i can cast my mind back to the cuts by John Nott circa early 1980’s. The binning of the harrier Force. Chopping Inf Battalions etc.

I am not in anyway decrying the posts above but this is IMHO separate to the C130 v A400 ‘debate’.

It won’t be the first or last time that a decision such as this results in capability gaps or devising new TTPs or means of trying to still deliver the effect(s).

However, what the wisest folk in Government or the MOD don’t know is that the C17 can solve everything. If only someone could drop them an email or short note pointing this out.

Once again, if the C-17 is so bad and the A-400 so wonderful, why do the French need RAF C-17 support?

 

[bob231]

Once again, if the C-17 is so bad and the A-400 so wonderful, why do the French need RAF C-17 support?

The C-17 does strategic airlift, a capability the French don't have organically.

The A400M does tactical airlift and can only do strategic airlift poorly. However, C-17 needs a proper runway and is too fast for effective paradrops, making it a dirt poor tactical airlifter.

 

[Sexton Blake]

Once again, if the C-17 is so bad and the A-400 so wonderful, why do the French need RAF C-17 support?

I didn’t think anyone here was saying that.

The post from @bob231 sums it up very well I think.

I personally (for the little it is worth) rate the C17 as much as I do C130 or Atlas. It is a case of needing different tools for different jobs.

 

[PhotEx]

The C-17 does strategic airlift, a capability the French don't have organically.

The A400M does tactical airlift and can only do strategic airlift poorly. However, C-17 needs a proper runway and is too fast for effective paradrops, making it a dirt poor tactical airlifter.

Not an effective troop dropper? Have you told the Yanks?
And it has a very respectable rough field performance.

 

[Sexton Blake]

Not an effective troop dropper? Have you told the Yanks?
And it has a very respectable rough field performance.

The MOD, RAF and U.K. SME’s seem to think it is not an effective ‘troop dropper’.

I have alluded in earlier posts as to why smaller can often be much, much better when one is ‘troop dropping’.

And a respectable ‘rough field performance’ is not as good as a better ‘rough field performance’.

 

[Lindermyer]

It seems strange that the usual cry of less platforms and common training and maintenance doesn't occur when a purely political decision foists an unwanted aircraft on the RAF.

Not entirely correct - whilst the choice was political a 2nd type bigger than the Herc was required and whilst crab air may well have prefferred the C17 it would still have resulted in a split fleet of Hercs + other

And before usual suspects tell me how much the RAF love it and what it can do. What do you expect them to say? And of course they will make it work, they are professionals, almost military like. That doesn't change the fact it wasn't wanted or needed.

Firstly it was wanted and needed - in as much as an aircraft to fulfill strategic requirement see above

Once again, if the C-17 is so bad and the A-400 so wonderful, why do the French need RAF C-17 support?

Nobody has said the C17 is bad - it is however very big, heavy and expensive.

The French required UK C17 support because neither it or the UK had brought the A400 into service

Whilst many criticisms can be levelled at the A400M - Its crap because nobody used it before it was built seems more than a tad frivolus.

The C-17 does strategic airlift, a capability the French don't have organically.

The A400M does tactical airlift and can only do strategic airlift poorly. However, C-17 needs a proper runway and is too fast for effective paradrops, making it a dirt poor tactical airlifter.

I would disagree to an extent - certainly in a US context it isnt strategic- but for the rest of NATO it is probably big enough and has sufficient range at high weight to fullfill that role.

I would argue The bigger issue for the UK is the loss of the mighty deathstar- which did the strategic lifting - because the replacement doesnt have a gurt big door and is rather more limited in cargo bulk as a result (offset i suppose to an extent by A400)

The C17 was only ever introduced to UK service to fill the bigger than herc gap on a temporary basis as a400 wasnt ready.

It could be argued then that the UK didnt need C17 either A400 is sufficient for all its requirements

The plan was 25 C130 and 25A400 we now have 3 types - which leads to finger pointing at A400 - when really the C17 is the plus 1.

If the C17 is required then we need to accept its 3 types in service - at least short to medium term.

Does the C17 get used for anything in UK service that the A400M wouldnt be able to fullfill ?

 

[ThunderBox]

@Lindermyer if C-17 is the plus one, why do the French want to borrow it?

It obviously needed as part of the mix.

The yanks have the ultimate heavy lift in the C-5, so let’s say for arguments sake,

C-130 tactical
A400M tactical + local strategic
C-17 Strategic + some tactical
C-5 Strategic

If that is the mix we have in NATO, they all have their benefits and shortcomings in the middle 2 so choose your mix.

 

[CH512O]

Makes you wonder why the French didn't join SAC based out of Papa, Hungary and make use of the 3 C17's there.

 

[Graculus]

Not an effective troop dropper? Have you told the Yanks?
And it has a very respectable rough field performance.

@Sexton Blake is still patiently waiting for an answer about the source of your comments.

He could have asked me of course, I'd have told him you pulled them from your hoop.

 

[Cromarty]

The C-17 does strategic airlift, a capability the French don't have organically.

The A400M does tactical airlift and can only do strategic airlift poorly. However, C-17 needs a proper runway and is too fast for effective paradrops, making it a dirt poor tactical airlifter.

You should warn the USAF they've been using it wrong.

Quickly man, there is no time to lose!

 

[PhotEx]

The MOD, RAF and U.K. SME’s seem to think it is not an effective ‘troop dropper’.

I have alluded in earlier posts as to why smaller can often be much, much better when one is ‘troop dropping’.

And a respectable ‘rough field performance’ is not as good as a better ‘rough field performance’.

haven't got the money to clear it with U.K. chutes is not the same as ‘not effective’.
everyone else manages just fine dropping peoples out if it.
ah, so it can land on a rough field.....


but those A400M’s, seem a bit fragile for a big butch airlifter,

 

[Cromarty]

However, what the wisest folk in Government or the MOD don’t know is that the C17 can solve everything. If only someone could drop them an email or short note pointing this out.

Then why do you include a dig at the C-17 in your posts (such as above) when it doesn't add to the discussion?

 

[orgASMic]

Not entirely correct - whilst the choice was political a 2nd type bigger than the Herc was required and whilst crab air may well have prefferred the C17 it would still have resulted in a split fleet of Hercs + other


Firstly it was wanted and needed - in as much as an aircraft to fulfill strategic requirement see above




Nobody has said the C17 is bad - it is however very big, heavy and expensive.

The French required UK C17 support because neither it or the UK had brought the A400 into service

Whilst many criticisms can be levelled at the A400M - Its crap because nobody used it before it was built seems more than a tad frivolus.



I would disagree to an extent - certainly in a US context it isnt strategic- but for the rest of NATO it is probably big enough and has sufficient range at high weight to fullfill that role.

I would argue The bigger issue for the UK is the loss of the mighty deathstar- which did the strategic lifting - because the replacement doesnt have a gurt big door and is rather more limited in cargo bulk as a result (offset i suppose to an extent by A400)

The C17 was only ever introduced to UK service to fill the bigger than herc gap on a temporary basis as a400 wasnt ready.

It could be argued then that the UK didnt need C17 either A400 is sufficient for all its requirements

The plan was 25 C130 and 25A400 we now have 3 types - which leads to finger pointing at A400 - when really the C17 is the plus 1.

If the C17 is required then we need to accept its 3 types in service - at least short to medium term.

Does the C17 get used for anything in UK service that the A400M wouldnt be able to fullfill ?

If RAF had been allowed A330 MRTT, it would have been a different story. We would also have access to a boom for all our new US types. Hey ho! Voyager gets most of it done.

C17 was what the RAF wanted for strat AT. Govt said A400M, which was late so we got C17 on lease, which we overflew due to need, so bought them outright. Then A400M arrived.

A400M currently not cleared to move lots of types of stuff (mostly types of DAC) that therefore has to go in C17. Without C17 that stuff would have to go by surface or piecemeal by C130, which has other tasks to do.

I have not been the biggest A400M fan, but it is a decent trash hauler and the RAF is making the best of it. I would say that we would have been better off with C17/C130 but that was never going to happen. A400M/C130 would not work at present due to the A400M's current limitations so a 3-type fleet is the best compromise.

It remains to be seen what happens when the A400M is doing all the stuff the RAF needs it to do, because the C17s have been run ragged. I would not be surprised to see a couple of ex-USAF C17s come out of the boneyard with roundels on (though they are slightly different inside) or for some of the spare A400Ms arrive at BZN. Either way, it's a big grey threesome for some while yet.

 

[Cromarty]

Not entirely correct - whilst the choice was political a 2nd type bigger than the Herc was required and whilst crab air may well have prefferred the C17 it would still have resulted in a split fleet of Hercs + other


Firstly it was wanted and needed - in as much as an aircraft to fulfill strategic requirement see above




Nobody has said the C17 is bad - it is however very big, heavy and expensive.

The French required UK C17 support because neither it or the UK had brought the A400 into service

The C17 was only ever introduced to UK service to fill the bigger than herc gap on a temporary basis as a400 wasnt ready.

It could be argued then that the UK didnt need C17 either A400 is sufficient for all its requirements

The plan was 25 C130 and 25A400 we now have 3 types - which leads to finger pointing at A400 - when really the C17 is the plus 1.

If the C17 is required then we need to accept its 3 types in service - at least short to medium term.

Does the C17 get used for anything in UK service that the A400M wouldnt be able to fullfill ?

Why are the French still utilising the C-17's then?

A split between strategic and tactical is not the problem. It's adding a not quite strategic not as tactical that is the problem.

The UK leased some C-17's because the A-400 was ready, then realised it was the aircraft it needed, purchased the leased C-17's and ordered more.

The UK did need the C-17. That's why they bought more of them.

It's obvious the C-17 does things in UK service the A-400 can't or isn't suitable.

 

[ThunderBox]

Yeah but can C-17 or -130 do Mach 1.2

Apologies for the wail.

 

[Lindermyer]

@Lindermyer if C-17 is the plus one, why do the French want to borrow it?

C17 is very much the plus one as it was never planned for RAF Service - That doesnt mean it isnt bloody useful and the RAF cant justify retaining it -

As for the French - do they still borrow it or now the A400 is in squadron use is that requirement gone / going away.

It obviously needed as part of the mix.

Again I dispute that because its a useful part of the mix - but it wasnt a planned part of the mix which implies the services didnt see an absolute need for C17.

My asking does the C17 do (in UK service) the A400 wont was a genuine question.

The yanks have the ultimate heavy lift in the C-5, so let’s say for arguments sake,

C-130 tactical
A400M tactical + local strategic
C-17 Strategic + some tactical
C-5 Strategic

If that is the mix we have in NATO, they all have their benefits and shortcomings in the middle 2 so choose your mix.

If it were up to me I would have gone with C130 - C17 mix but we couldnt afford 25 C17 andd 25 Js so were looking at a more hercs less 17 mix. In turn that risks not having enough big aircraft when you need it or far to many when you dont.


Of course we would also have bought new model Ks rather than the composite fragile crappy couldnt paradrop C130J which was never going to be qualified as an SF bird. Because all of those arguments were levelled at the J when it entered service by the naysayers. Which does tend to make me a tad sceptical about the A400 absolute dog toffee arguments put forward by some individuals - sadly weve lost MM who could be counted on for measured relevant and factually based criticisms of the A400M

 

[Lindermyer]

haven't got the money to clear it with U.K. chutes is not the same as ‘not effective’.
everyone else manages just fine dropping peoples out if it.
ah, so it can land on a rough field.....


but those A400M’s, seem a bit fragile for a big butch airlifter,

View attachment 552904

View attachment 552903

Dumb awarded because ive seen hercs in a similar state following bird strikes / debris kicked up from rough fields and theres no - oh do stop with the ill informed trolling button