Airbus sees potential for sale of "hundreds" of A400Ms to the US military

Airbus is planning a heavy marketing campaign for the A400M to the US military as a replacement for older C-130 aircraft, and C-17s. They plan to market it after France, the UK, Turkey, and Germany receive their aircraft. They are going to let the customer help market the aircraft for them. They are currently focusing on UH-72 sales to the US, which are built in Mississippi.

(Reuters) - Europe's Airbus (AIR.PA) said on Thursday that it sees the possibility of selling hundreds of its A400M military transport plane to the U.S. military in the medium to long term.

Barry Eccleston, president of Airbus Americas Inc, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit that the company was focused on securing additional orders for the UH-72 helicopter that it builds in Mississippi in the short term, but its "next big project" would be focused on marketing the A400M.

www.reuters.com...

Sorry..
Jumped in a bit quick ..
I'm not against air bus.....

There is a FED-EX A3.. ( i got pics) plane that comes in every night at 6:45pm
Ohhhhh the prop plane..military...

Well Zaphod! I have been watching this ..

Airboyd on YouTube has this...

If it's what I saw as a reversible propeller... on landing..

The C-17.. does this.
Does it not?

And I will cower..
But it was the first thing I noticed



Ohhh! The helicopter...

Yep...still your gig!

Yes still watching this...
But for me..
Just seeing if it will serve as a medivac....
Not that other heli..from France that crashed....with me in it!

Yes sarcasm is hard with this one..
Personal history.... waiting for that better
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I can't spell it.. but it was a high altitude ( sorry for the pronunciation .)
Al u et

Twice it crashed
The second with me.. tail blade locked up!

a reply to: Bigburgh

Most turboprops are able to change the pitch of the blade to act as a reverser. It's the same as reverse thrust on a jet engine. The blade angle changes in just about every aspect of flight, from feathering when shut down to keep it from spinning, to cruise, to takeoff power.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh .. OK..ermm.

I hate flying!
What's going on?

Are we talking wings or blades on this thread?

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh .. OK..ermm.

I hate flying!
What's going on?

Are we talking wings or blades on this thread?

It started with what I thought was a great aircraft... a heavy prop that did a reverse after landing..
Again airboyd..

OK OK..
Yep

I knew elite racer/acrobat planes could do this..
But never thought to apply this to a cargo plane need..
When I saw this..
I began wondering if the C-130 was done...
It was a great next Gen I thought.

I don't see it. A400M fills a niche between the Herk and the C-17. Do we have a requirement to fill that niche? How many missions are too heavy for a Super Herk and too light to justify using a C-17? bIt costs almost as much as a C-17 which is already produced locally, and the C-17 carries twice as much by weight. You can buy three Super Herks and a C-17 for the cost of two A400M. It can carry almost twice as much as a Super Herk, but it costs more than three times as much. Congress already loves keeping the C-17 line open. It's like a hobby. The J's are all new builds and the AF is looking to replace the older H's. Where is Airbus seeing these orders coming from?

a reply to: _Del_

It wouldn't be the first time that Airbus saw a market where there wasn't one.

originally posted by: _Del_
I don't see it. A400M fills a niche between the Herk and the C-17. Do we have a requirement to fill that niche? How many missions are too heavy for a Super Herk and too light to justify using a C-17? bIt costs almost as much as a C-17 which is already produced locally, and the C-17 carries twice as much by weight. You can buy three Super Herks and a C-17 for the cost of two A400M. It can carry almost twice as much as a Super Herk, but it costs more than three times as much. Congress already loves keeping the C-17 line open. It's like a hobby. The J's are all new builds and the AF is looking to replace the older H's. Where is Airbus seeing these orders coming from?

I suspect the EU.
And some U.S.
The u.s. did just purchase and mothball 2 Italian made ( twin engine of that region )Turbo props..
Maybe the U.S. is buying and studying..

But don't forget..puffery..
Make it look like...
Time may tell..

originally posted by: Bigburgh
The u.s. did just purchase and mothball 2 Italian made ( twin engine of that region )Turbo props..
Maybe the U.S. is buying and studying..

The Air Force never wanted them, were forced to buy them, and then declared them surplus to need right after getting some of them. They didn't mothball them, though. They gave them to the Coast Guard.

a reply to: _Del_

Only 14 of them. Seven went to AFSOC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We'll never get the good stories on those so they don't count...

That A400M has always looked Russian to me for some reason, and I'm a diehard Herc fan for life growing up with the 118th Airlift Wing. Like what Del said its between the Herc and C-17 and there is just not a need for a plane to justify costs. I did find a comparison pic after a quick search.C-17, A400M, C130J

I think the only chance they would have on getting this through is if Airbus agreed to build them domestically, in which case somebodies state Politian is going to push hard for them. Sometime politics outweighs military needs.

a reply to: Sammamishman

They will still be competing for money with projects from LockMart and Boeing which are already built in someone's home district (well, several districts, actually). The tanker decision already showed they were more interested in subsidizing industry.

The A400M is a twofer. You get two aircraft for the price of one. It is a tanker as well a transport. Why not build it under license from Airbus? The UK decided they could only support two transports, so they are going to sell off their C130s at some point. Then we also have to consider the Embraer KC-390. It looks like the era of the C130 is winding down. Time to move on.

a reply to: _Del_

I read the Air Force eventually wants about 160 of the H, and 140 of the J, for a total of around 300. We need to start looking at what the US needs 10-20 years down the line. I myself would prefer geared turbofans over turboprops.

a reply to: Matt1951

So is the C-130 though. The HC/MC/KC-130 all serve as tankers for both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Very true but do we want to keep buying C130s after say another 10 years? I see Rolls-Royce is developing geared turbofan engines with variable pitch fan blades.
Is it time to retire the turboprop?
An A400M with turbofan engines?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Matt1951

So is the C-130 though. The HC/MC/KC-130 all serve as tankers for both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

And so is the new kc-46, the kc-10, and to some extent the kc-135. They always think about multiple roles for these aircraft when building them.