A400M will not make 2009

[Porrohman]

I don't disagree that the A400M is faster and has a longer range than the Belfast. I just struggle to understand why its empty weight is 11 tonnes more than the Belfast and why the Belfast could travel almost 40% further per tonne of fuel whilst carrying almost the same payload. Given the huge technological advances that have taken place in the last 40 plus years I am yet to be convinced by any of the arguments put forward so far that the A400M design is particularly ambitious or efficient, especially when used in a long-range strategic airlift role where it lacks the range, payload and speed to be particularly effective.

The Airbus Military website http://www.airbusmilitary.com/missions.html#RAPID illustrates my point perfectly. It shows a couple of typical A400M missions, both of which could be predominantly strategic in nature and would probably be better served using C5Ms, C17ERs or B747 Dreamlifters for outsize cargo and A380Fs or B747-8Fs for the rest, with A400Ms, C130Js and helicopters being used for the final short hop to the front line.

The Middle East mission envisages setting off from Paris with a fuel stop outbound in Cyprus. Departing from the UK instead of Paris, the duration of the outbound flight is probably 10.5 hours by A400M (I've added 1 hour for a fuel stop and another hour for departing from the UK rather than Paris). A B747-8F or A380F could fly the same sector non-stop in just over 6 hours carrying four or five times the payload. Why use a tactical airlifter and tactically trained aircrew to perform what is clearly a strategic airlift task? In any case, would the RAF have sufficient aircrew to be able to achieve the levels of aircraft utilisation envisaged by this two week A400M operation? I suspect not.

The payload / range / speed capabilities of the A400M would be even less appropriate if the Far East humanitarian operation illustrated on the Airbus Military website had required transportation of substantial quantities of relief supplies from Europe. The Airbus scenario envisages ferrying the aircraft from Denmark to Australia with minimal payload and it takes 32 hours to complete the trip. With a 30 ton payload, and departing from the UK rather than Denmark an extra stop would be needed and the total journey time might be about 35 hours. A B747-8F or an A380 could complete this journey in about 19 hours whist carrying 120 or 150 tonnes of relief supplies. By ferrying the aircraft out with minimal payload, the scenario painted by Airbus implicitly accepts that the A400M is not a suitable vehicle for delivering cargo across such long ranges, and that it is better suited to delivering the final short hop from Australia to Timor.

The A400M would certainly be a very useful asset to the RAF in the tactical transport role. In the short range tactical mission it might be even more useful if it could carry more than 37 tonnes payload in exchange for less fuel. According to the Airbus specifications, this doesn’t appear to be possible though.

It’s obvious for all to see that the RAF needs a major boost to its airlift capability and I don’t disagree that the A400M would be a useful addition to the short range tactical airlift fleet. I have yet to be convinced however that it’s a particularly efficient design, especially when used in the long range strategic airlift role.