Originally Posted by
Evalu8ter
Our current issue stems from Blair’s desire to be the best European he could, probably hoping that he’d get more understanding that way vice the largely sceptical and sometimes confrontational approach of his predecessors. A400 was totemic of that policy, and would have given the RAF a balance of A400/C130 like many in Europe. The issue was Blair’s evangelical appetite for being a ‘force for good’ globally and the lack of AT that could be used to quickly move kit around delivering his message. Antonovs were rarely available when they were needed, and subject to bidding wars. A400 was running seriously late so the lease of C-17s was the fudge; still a good European by not pulling out of Atlas, but able to quickly spread the word of Blair via Strat AT. The rest is, of course, history. The result is that we can’t afford, it seems, to run all three types. C-17 is irreplaceable, A400 too new, so C130 loses out. Capability trumped by cash/politics (again). It leaves the UK in the slightly odd position (since the retirement of the -146) with no cargo lifter between a CH-47 and a A400 (though, of course, you could use two Chinooks…..). It would be interesting to see if there was any cash benefit to running a small fleet of C-27J, but I guess, pan DLoD, it would still be cheaper to retain a similar number of -130Js. Be interesting to see how the RAF proposes to tank the MH-47Gs when they arrive, Airbus had had issues despite more recent success, and half of the Franco/German buy are KC-130s for helo AAR. Its also an admission that A400 is simply too big to be a sensible replacement for the Transall in many roles (especially SF and austere OOA like Mali…).
The A400M dates back to the
Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) of the early 1980s, which is long before Tony Blair.
Also, as much as being "a good European" (I get the impression you meant that in a perjorative sense), Blair's later commitment to the A400M secured thousands of British jobs.