France to buy C-130?!!

[KenV]

I wonder if the problem for the A400M is not the same as that for the C-17 - a reluctance on the part of the command to commit a $250 million (or Euro) asset to short/rough field operations in the middle of nowhere.

Hmmm. Maybe. But then again, the C-130 crew is bigger than the C-17 crew. Are C-130 crew more expendable than C-17 crew?

[downsizer]

J operates with less crew than legacy C130s so I don't really think that's the issue.

[Out Of Trim]

Just to flip this around; would the USAF consider buying the A400M as a C-130 replacement themselves? A small fleet might well be useful to uncle Sam!

[Courtney Mil]

Or maybe France have just 6 A400Ms and are still establishing a new type. Lots of work up yet to do. It will eventually be their new workhorse, but early days yet.

The C-130 is well established, fully manned and fully supported. It is also well proven in the North African environment and does the job, making it the obvious choice for those missions.

And their is another aspect that some may wish to take issue with. France does not feel the need to field new types on ops in order to justify their purchase in the same way that UK and U.S. Military leaders do.

[KenV]

France does not feel the need to field new types on ops in order to justify their purchase in the same way that UK and U.S. Military leaders do.

Hmmmm. F-22 reached IOC in 2005. And after a decade of service has seen minimal actual operational service. Raptor did not see combat till late 2014 over Syria. F-35 has seen the same slow (one could call it glacial) work up. The first production C-17 was delivered in 1993 and the first squadron was not operational until two years later. Going back to the 70s and the F-15, the first production Eagle was delivered in 1974. It took another year before the first squadron was operational. The first F-15 deployment was not until 1977.

So I personally don't see any rush by USAF to "field new types" to "justify their purchase". In fact, just the opposite.

By comparison, France received its first A400 in September 2013. Just three months later, that A400 was deployed to Mali. Was that rush to "field" the A400 used to "justify their purchase"? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Courtney Mil]

I get what you're saying, Ken, but that wasn't quite what I meant. France has used their assets where they were required rather than because they have just bought them and want to show them off - your point, I know. There have been lots of occasions when countries a bit further west have been very keen to get their shiny toys into a punch-up to justify the purchase, continued support and additional spending. I have been there when such discussions took place - and not necessarily for new, shiny jets.

F-22 didn't need to be deployed in the early years and there may have been reasons not to. That said, I take your point that it wasn't sent to a sandpit just to justify its purchase.

But my real point was that the French don't need to deploy A400 into short/rough field ops simply to justify the purchase. It's simply a different culture. If French authorities were required to justify all their spending, there might be another revolution.