French C-17?

[sandiego89]

Possible French interest in the C-17? All stress the A400 is still alive, but an interestign development.


EXCLUSIVE: France confirms interest in Boeing C-17 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/03/324789/exclusive-france-confirms-interest-in-boeing-c-17.html)

[Wheaters]

Well we spent almost £800 million leasing 4 of them so you'd assume they were looking to buy.

Could anyone who actually flies on them comment as to how often armoured vehicles (25t) are carried? Seems that carrying these is the only real argument in favour of the A400 left..

[mick2088]

I think France has had an interest in the C-17 for a while, long before the A400M debacle. There were rumours that they were going to buy some a few years back. Makes sense really.

[GreenKnight121]

There are things the C-17 can do that A400M cannot: long range, fast transit speed, size/volume/weight of cargo.

There are things A400M can do that C-17 cannot: air-air refueling, true battlefield/tactical operations.

There is a place for both... and with the estimated "fair-market price" of a single A400M now nearing (or exceeding) 80% of that for a single C-17, and the delays in the A-400M program, there is more incentive to look very hard at C-17 as a partial near-term solution and as a long-term complement to the planned A400M fleet.

[El Lobo Solo]

121, your facts are in error.

The C-17 air-refuels. It's also very tactical. While not a C-130, it's capable of more tactical airlift than any other airframe in the USAF.

Here's some accurate info:
YouTube - C-17 refueling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiL57RjNxLg)
YouTube - Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Short Feild Landing Then Backup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvUIwj4T03o)

Sorry mate, you're way off.

Cheers!
ELS

[The PM]

I think Green Knight means perform air to air refueling, ie a tanker role.....

[GreenKnight121]

El Lobo Solo

So,the C-17 is fitted with a hose-reel system and/or a boom to refuel other aircraft??

New one on me... I always thought it just had a receptacle to receive fuel!

Nope... your own links confirm that C-17 cannot act as a tanker... while A400M has that capability designed into ALL of them... unless the customer specifically has the system removed!




No, you made an insulting post that distorted what I said. No wonder you are a "lone wolf"... no one can stand your distortion of their words.



Note the statement "TRUE tactical"... C-17 is advertised as having "tactical airlift capabilities", but the USAF has found those are less than expected... with the aircraft being restricted from some situations Boeing had claimed it could handle.

That back-up capability is only good on paved surfaces... trying it on dirt always causes engine damage... as does most other dirt-surface operations.

[Old Fella]

Whatever tactical capability and or air refuelling system the C17 has it is at least flying. The A400M seems to be slipping further and further behind with the passing of each news about it. The comparison between the A400M and the C17 is like comparing apples with oranges, except for one point, it is a fruitless debate.

[HercDriver]

the C17 IS an Airlifter.... that french thing is still ...well....delayed till what ....at least late 2012.......and the germans are none to happy with the payload being reduced from 37 tons to as little as 30 tons.....though more likely 32/3 tons...... and as they have order sixty of the buggers.....well.... that doesnt bode well. :ooh:

[Dengue_Dude]

A modern aircraft not making spec ? I'm shocked - AND delayed you say . . . whatever next ?

Whatever . . . indeed.

[Jolly Green]

YouTube - C-17 Landing on dirt strip in Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4RJk)

YouTube - C-17 Landing on dirt strip in Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4RJk)

Dirt surface operations may be limited, but they make for great videos.

[billynospares]

the C17 does something very important the A400 doesnt. It flies !! :ugh:

[Blighter Pilot]

And at least the C17's engines actually work.

The delay to the A400M is going to leave the RAF drastically short of both STRAT and TAC AT airlift for at least 3 years.

With the ageing C130K's out of service by the end of 2012, the C130J's requiring outer wing work as well as airframes being updated for specific roles, the TAC airlift pool is going to be decimated.

FSTA is on track but will only help with the STRAT/AR role.

What we actually need is more C17s and C130s - bin A400M completely or reduce the order to some specifically roled platforms.

[0497]

From FlightGlobal: Defence ministry officials wrote to the US Air Force ....

By buying USAF slots, the Canadians and Aussies managed to get theirs in about 12 months from order.

Seems that carrying these is the only real argument in favor of the A400 left..

It'd still be only able to carry one at a time. How useful would that be? Also rumored to be overweight and so may not offer the advertised cargo performance.

[Pilot Pacifier]

And at least the C17's engines actually work.

And will the French veriant have a better reverse thrust... :}

[TBM-Legend]

..and painted in French "combat" white!:uhoh:

[The Helpful Stacker]

FSTA is on track but will only help with the STRAT/AR role.

Do you work at Main Building in PR?

Which timescale is your optimism based on? The original, revised, re-revised, re-re-revised or just the entirely new one that was made-up in an effort to ignore the hopelessly drawn-out and poorly run effort to get some civilian passenger aircraft with a few mods on tick?

[Double Zero]

Seems to me it's a very expensive shame anyone bothered with the A-400; I'm quite sure the C-130J & C-17 would be fine...sod it if they're ' not built here ', we need operational high quality machines, not something which might work sometime - or does anyone really think the A-400 will be perfect on delivery, not requiring years of further development ?!

As for air-air refuelling, not simple I grant you but it doesn't take Einstein...

[Cobra98]

El Lobo Solo

So,the C-17 is fitted with a hose-reel system and/or a boom to refuel other aircraft??

New one on me... I always thought it just had a receptacle to receive fuel!

Nope... your own links confirm that C-17 cannot act as a tanker... while A400M has that capability designed into ALL of them... unless the customer specifically has the system removed!

I just might be helpful if you would be less of an arse and more clear in your posts. The only lack of respect is yours!

[herkman]

Me thinks that unless Airbus get their act together, that should the Germans and French pull out of the deal, there will be no A400M.

Their desire to be number one ahead of particularly Boeing, may in actual fact be their downfall.

Sad as it may appear, the facts are and is now proven by their results, is just because you can turn out airliners by the bucketful, that does not make you a military aircraft supplier overnight.

Sad as it is, Airbus just keeps crawling along, hoping that politics will keep the venture alive when in actual fact that could be what kills it.

I think of some very good aircraft, The TSR2 for example killed by government action, and that airplane appeared to be a world beater.

I really, can Airbus expect it customers to say, sorry we cannot fight a war until 2014 (which I believe is a more realistic date) please come back then.

Regards

Col

[pr00ne]

Seeing as how Secretary gates has just ruled out ANY further USAF C-17 orders, perhaps the dream ticket of C-17 and C-130J is no longer going to be an option?

A400M or bust?

[Modern Elmo]

Consider this history:

V-22 Osprey

Cost

In 1986 the cost of a single V-22 was estimated at $24 million, with 923 aircraft to be built. In 1989 the Bush administration cancelled the project, at which time the unit cost was estimated at $35 million, with 602 aircraft. The V-22 question caused friction between [then] Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney and Congress throughout his tenure. DoD spent some of the money Congress appropriated to develop the aircraft, but congressional sources accused Cheney, who continued to oppose the Osprey, of violating the law by not moving ahead as Congress had directed. Cheney argued that building and testing the prototype Osprey would cost more than the amount appropriated. In the spring of 1992 several congressional supporters of the V-22 threatened to take Cheney to court over the issue. A little later, in the face of suggestions from congressional Republicans that Cheney's opposition to the Osprey was hurting President Bush's reelection campaign, especially in Texas and Pennsylvania where the aircraft would be built, Cheney relented and suggested spending $1.5 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop it. He made clear that he personally still opposed the Osprey and favored a less costly alternative.
The program was revived by the incoming Clinton administration...

V-22 Osprey (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-cost.htm)


The point is, some cancelled DoD projects get un-cancelled. I predict that both more C-17's and F-22's will be built. The C-17 will stay in production continuously. F-22A production will go into a hiatus, then come back with F-22B's.

[BEagle]

I recall once saying how similar the early jet-powered 'FLA' concepts of the yet-to-be-named A400M looked not too unlike the last-gasp design concepts for the HS681....

And wondering whether it would ultimately go the same way...:\

Hope not.

[C17MooseDriver]

Note the statement "TRUE tactical"... C-17 is advertised as having "tactical airlift capabilities", but the USAF has found those are less than expected... with the aircraft being restricted from some situations Boeing had claimed it could handle.

That back-up capability is only good on paved surfaces... trying it on dirt always causes engine damage... as does most other dirt-surface operations.
The USAF loves the C-17. Not quite sure what the USAF got from the C-17 that was less than expected. The only restriction I see that Boeing designed, is the use of LAPES. But that was an USAF restriction.

I don't also understand what you mean by True Tactical capabilities vs. tactical airlift capabilities. We pretty much do everything a C-130 can do in a tactical environment. We land on dirt, we do low levels, we land on short Assault strips, we do airdrops and formation, and much more. But unlike the standard C130, we also can refuel giving us a theoretical unlimited range.

You are right about using reservers to back up on dirt fields, but that's due to FOD ingestion.

[WolvoWill]

The USAF loves the C-17. Not quite sure what the USAF got from the C-17 that was less than expected.

Range with full/heavy payloads, fuel burn? Have seen questions regarding the C-17s performance in this sense not being as good as was hoped for, and for the strategic role the C-5 still has the upper hand (when it doesn't break down that is!).

[0497]

.... and for the strategic role the C-5 still has the upper hand (when it doesn't break down that is!).

A while back the C-5 modernization program (I guess to make it more reliable) was dramatically cut. Might mean more C-17s to make up the loss in airlift. I wonder if the Fat-herc (25t+ C130) would still be developed?

U.S. GAO - Defense Acquisitions: Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-50)

[Xercules]

This would be a much better forum if it did not continually resort to nothing but Argumentum ad Hominem (fro the less educated - nothing but personal insult). Yes I work for Airbus and could be deemed to be somewhat biased but:

1. The C130J was late - the RAF was the launch customer and its delays led to one project officer taking over his Squadron to receive it into service and completing his tour before the first one arrived. It also led to additional costs on unplanned Majors which had to be completed on the retiring Ks and a complete re-vamp of the withdrawal programme.

2. The C17 was also late into USAF service and entered service unable fully to carry out its role. I remember visiting Charleston to be told that when it first arrived it was restricted to a range of 25 miles from base for quite some time - not a very useful airlifter.

That A400M is late is more than regrettable, especially in view of the Blair War Projects and the Brown Fiscal Squeezes but, if you want to be involved in development programmes, delays are always a possibility. A400M is now at a stage that both C130J (and that was only meant to be a modernisation programme) and C17 went through.

I notice as well that "rumour has it" in some form or other figures frequently in posts usually followed by strong vituperation, further insult and condemnation. Please bring some balanced debate into it.

[MarkD]

In fairness, for a while it was looking like C-17 would be a dead programme. If it wasn't for the dribs and drabs of orders Long Beach has managed to eke out from the Canadians and others the French would be SOL because the line would have been closed by now given the reluctance to give USAF any more a few years back.

No matter what Gates says it's hard to see no more 17s for USAF now that the line is still humming especially given the operational requirements for Afstan, the issues the C-5 fleet has been having and the continuing delay in any lift enhancement arising from the replacement of KC-135.