It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

European Hercules replacement

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
It struck me that I haven't heard much about the A400 for a while and I have been trying to raise new subjects lately, so I dug out some nice pictures of what is effectively a Hercules replacement. That realisation of its target market left me wondering how long it will be before some Yank or other finds something about it to complain about, but never mind, on we go.

It appears quite conservative by comparison with several US 'Hercules replacement' schemes of late but then again it will fly withing the next three years and be in service maybe qa decade before the advanced (and expensive) US stealthy projects materialise (if indeed they ever do).

Whats the general opinion on this board then, does the US really need to be making stealthy transports or might the transatlantic alliance be better served (and billions of dollars better spent) by the US buying into the A400 in return for our continued support of the F-35? Enjoy the piccies and then let rip guys!











posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
hey waynos how goes it. well personally i love number1 the look of the a400. also i like the thinking of the us buying this in return for the f-35 support but i would say it wouldn't be in overly large numbers. also to add my own little hopes. this would be a sweet replacement for the ageing (even faster aging) of the canadian C-130's. what do you think about the chances of that waynos? i'd be interested in your openion. regards Can_EH



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I think a Canadian purchase is vastly more likely than a US one in reality, Canada is a good customer for quite a bit of our tech as seen in the purchase of the Hawk and EH 101 Cormorant.

Also, by 'US purchase' I was thinking more along the lines of a Lockheed licence build where the amount of US workshare could be tailored so that the value offset the European buys of the F-35. There is no industrial or military reason why this would not be a good arrangement but lots and lots of political ones.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
hey waynos how goes it. well personally i love number1 the look of the a400. also i like the thinking of the us buying this in return for the f-35 support but i would say it wouldn't be in overly large numbers. also to add my own little hopes. this would be a sweet replacement for the ageing (even faster aging) of the canadian C-130's. what do you think about the chances of that waynos? i'd be interested in your openion. regards Can_EH


I already responded in original (now Boeing/BAE merger) thread but since it moved here now let's go again:

1. US will not buy tactical transport from Airbus, even if it was made in US.
2. They want something more advanced (mainly shorter take off/landing range with 30 tons payload).
3. The "buying the A-400 in return of EU JSF investments" idea is not the best, because the WHOLE EU will buy max. 10% of all F-35, while USAF needs at least 500 (maybe even 1000) tactical transports - that's 75-90% of all potencial A-400 orders (based on current orders waynos posted). Such solution would be clearly favorable only for one side.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The USAF is supposed to be working on a stealthy transport, but from what I've read on the specs it will be a long long time before it is even built. They want it to do everything including the dishes. They want a high speed, stealthy platform that can defend itself, and is highly manuverable.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
agreed agreed agreed
your nailin this subject waynos but i dont know about can we have had to fight so hard to get our freakin gov to do anything for the forces. in the past 5 years thigns have leveled out with them cutting big bucks from the military but they got a long way to go before they start properly fixing things spending wise. as for the lockheed build it seems likely that they would try to do something like that. so also wondering what would be the most likely role of the a400 the brits and usa have the C-17's. would it be more of a complementing role to the 17? any ideas?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
agreed agreed agreed
your nailin this subject waynos but i dont know about can we have had to fight so hard to get our freakin gov to do anything for the forces. in the past 5 years thigns have leveled out with them cutting big bucks from the military but they got a long way to go before they start properly fixing things spending wise. as for the lockheed build it seems likely that they would try to do something like that. so also wondering what would be the most likely role of the a400 the brits and usa have the C-17's. would it be more of a complementing role to the 17? any ideas?


The A-400 is intended to replace the C-130, but it will be more universal , for example it will be able to carry tracked military wehicles, such as Warrior or Bradley.

And so far I understand the C-17 are only leased by UK, they will be probably replaced by A-400, so it's more like temporary solution.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by longbow]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I think the A400 is a fine bit of kit.

I don't see the USA buying any though and I think this history of poor sales of almost any and everything in terms of military planes to the US is also a prime reason why the European buying of JSF will not stretch beyond 10% (if that! The UK may still cancel if the US is going to continue to play silly-buggers over it......and when the public become more widely aware of this it may be the UK gov is forced to withdraw from the program whether they like it or not.)

[edit on 27-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
any ideas if it will be more of a hot drop aircraft in less secure airfields like they have in Iraq now or will it be more behind the lines like the C-5. I personaly think it has potential for hot drops.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Longbow, I know you are right about the numbers, thats why I was suggesting a licence build, that way the dollar value of the order that goes back to the EU can be predetermined to match the F-35 programme and 90% of the manufacturing work can be done by Lockheed. As I said, I don't think it will happen, it was just a thought.

Canada EH, The A400 fits in below the the C-17, which is a large transport, the A400 is a medium airlifter which would be available in greater numbers and be more flexible. It will definitely be used for hot drops, incidentally, the USAF was surprised to see how the RAF used even the much bigger C-17 on hot drops and has since adopted the same technique themselves


[edit on 27-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
yah i read about that the us ended up adopting the same operation drops as the british. longbow since u seem to think the US wont buy what do U think about Canada buying any? or are we goin to buy or lease the 17's?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Whats the general opinion on this board then, does the US really need to be making stealthy transports or might the transatlantic alliance be better served (and billions of dollars better spent) by the US buying into the A400 in return for our continued support of the F-35? Enjoy the piccies and then let rip guys!


Actually the US may buy Airbus Heavy Lifters. It's called the C-295 and EADS has been demo-ing it for the US. It seems a good aircraft too.

www.eads.net...



Let's not go talkin crazy about a need to compensate the EU for buying JSF's.....................................

I think the multi-billion dollar USAF refueling tanker contract with Airbus makes up for the JSF buys. The European public has a perception that the US never buys EU tech and equipment, that's just not true. The US plans to buy hundreds of A330's, how many JSF's are the RAF or the french gonna end up with?

www.c295-tour.com...

"The A330 Tanker offers a state-of-the-art platform and refueling system clearly exceeding the performances of competitors' alternatives,” said Rafael Acedo, Vice President Programs EADS Military Transport Aircraft Division.

The Air Force has a requirement for several hundred aerial tankers to assure its in-flight refueling mission for U.S. forces worldwide, and EADS is committed to be a viable competitor in this important program.


Links on the $9 billion deal to make Airbus's A330 become the USAF KC-330 tanker. It was nice to see Airbus is gonna build the tankers here in the US though.
www.c295-tour.com...
news.yahoo.com...
biz.yahoo.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Nice links, thank you. Two things though, the C-295 is nothing to do with Airbus, its a Spanish-Indonesian co-product which EADS is marketing, not Airbus.

Also, the US tanker deal has not been decided yet, bvthe A330 is just a contender, not the actual tanker that will enter service, not yet.

Sure, shout about it if it wins but its a bit early yet.

Oh, a third thing occurs, I wasn't promoting the A400 as 'compensation' as you put it, merely as an opportunity for a trade offset deal, as these things are quite common in international deals, eg when the RAF bought the Sentry AEW.1 the USA placed contracts worth 100% of the AWACS deal with UK companies, thats the sort of thing I'm advocating.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
You mean we cannot rebuild the C-130 fleet one more time, or better yet make new ones? When they start disposing of them, I would like to make one into a mobile home.

I love the looks of the Airbus, it has the classic no nonsense military cargo plane look. And those prop blades look real wicked. I am just somebody who likes the oldies but goodies.

Give me a C-46, or a C-119. I love that old stuff.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, what does the A400 offer that the C-130
AMP doesn't?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Oh, a third thing occurs, I wasn't promoting the A400 as 'compensation' as you put it, merely as an opportunity for a trade offset deal, as these things are quite common in international deals, eg when the RAF bought the Sentry AEW.1 the USA placed contracts worth 100% of the AWACS deal with UK companies, thats the sort of thing I'm advocating.


Yeah, you have a point. I was sort of taking a jab at ya there, but still you have a point. Miltary contracts are some of the most lucrative deals a company can make and the US and EU nations need alot more cooperation on that front and a little less haggling over petty details.

China/India/Pakistan/Russia are going to overtake all of the west in military spending. Any new deals to keep NATO and especially the US and UK ahead in tech are going to be fine with me, I don't care who builds the stuff really.

Also the A330 is not a contender for the tanker contract, it is THE ONLY contender. The USAF can't give Boeing the deal now because of the massive corruption, Boeing is the only other company that makes a suitable aircraft. Also EADS announced it's plans to build a $600 million dollar factory in Alabama so they must be pretty confident about a deal. At least they learned the first rule of US defense spending..........offer to build a new factory in a critical congress persons district.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Um, what about Lockheed? And Boeing CAN still get the contract, just not the way it was written before. There have been other cases where a contractor screwed up a contract, rebid on it, and got it again. Boeing already has the technology built, and flying in the KC-767. They are testing, and certifying the boom right now. Everyone else will have to build the plane, test fly it, cerity it for air to air refueling ops....If there was no chance of Boeing getting the contract, then the Pentagon would have just said "Congratulations you got the new tanker contract." or would have announced that the competition was ONLY between Company A and Company B and Boeing wasn't allowed to bid on it. The problem they had with the contract just means that Boeing will have to work harder, and give the USAF a better contract if they want to have a chance to make the deal.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Zaphod58, I think that Boeing is probably out on this one. They paid a pentagon official to get the contract initially. With all the scandles the DoD is facing I think they would have a hard time getting a deal with boeing thru congress. Also letting Airbus in on a large contract will help smoothe some things over with Chirac and Blair. The Airbus deal would involve making Northrop a partner and building the aircraft here, that will solve alot of the criticism the DoD will face in congress.

Lockheed has already acknowledged that they are out of the race, both Northrop and Lockheed were talking publicly about working with EADS (Airbus). As of late it looks like a partnership between Northrop and Airbus worked better for EADS. The last Lockheed proposal was an entirely new aircraft from the ground up, the Air Force wanted a faster cheaper alternative.

Airbus has already designed a boom system for the A330 and it is actually pretty impressive. I'm a hardcore believer in keeping defense systems American, but this Airbus deal doesn't look so bad. It keeps jobs here, includes US companies as well, and can help with some of the criticism we face in Paris and London. Besides, Boeing would have had this deal locked up if they just played by the rules but they got caught bribing a DoD official. Thier greed hurt them.

OMG.......I'm actually defending an EU company. Quick I'm gonna have to go read a Bill O'Riely or Sean Hannity book.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I think that Boeing would actually have a pretty easy time getting a contract through Congress. They would have to make it a sweet contract for the USAF, but they could do it. What makes it better for Boeing is the fact that their plane is flying now, and could be in service a lot faster than Airbus/Northrop. Any contract would probably hurt Boeing in the short term, but I think they have a pretty good chance of getting it through. It's happened before.

Yeah, Airbus has developed a boom, but as far as I know it hasn't been built, flown, or tested in any way yet other than simulations.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
What astounds me about the way Boeing screwed up is the fact that there was no need at all to do it. Boeing are the only US company capable and experienced in building large tankers, the USAF wants a large tanker, its a no brainer as far as US defence buying goes. No wonder heads rolled.

Also the C-295 is not a heavy lifter (I missed that point earlier, sorry) but a small tactical transport.

I don't know enough about what advantage the A400 holds over the new generation Hercules, I must look into that, but seeing as the whole customer base for thew A400 already flies the C-130 there must be something pretty substantial as they still need to make a profit on the world market with this plane and if it was no better than the established and trusted competition it wouldn't be worth building at all. Like I said before though, research needed before I really try to answer that point.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join