Originally Posted by
sandiego89
Pax, I offer you might be missing a few points, and although it is tough to find a price, I feel you are way off in saying a C-17 is less than 50% of the A-400 purchace price. Way off.
I'm not so sure about that, when the various subsidies to Airbus are taken into consideration. The last I heard, UK was spending £3.2Bn for 25 A400M's. But the overall cost appears now to be a state secret.
And then there's the support costs.
Originally Posted by
sandiego89
A-400 customers mostly needed a C-130 and C-160 replacement/augment, with a bit more capability than what those have, not the huge leap the C-17 brings. For many scenarios you do not need the capability the C-17 brings. The A-400 is a "tweener" between the C-130 and the C-17, and for some customers that makes sence, especially for many of the European customers that are not flying continental distances that often. The UK has decided they need both (and that makes sense for them).
The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.
The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport. What you read and whom you believe may influence you thoughts here.
Political and industrial implications are also important. "Buy American" is not always the answer- and I am one (American), but understand that.
You don't need a semi-truck (lorry for my UK friends) for every run to the home improvement store....
Sure, but if you can keep the semi-truck running for less than the cost of the fancy pickup truck, because it's easier to get it it serviced, and easier to find spares, maybe the semi-truck makes more sense even if sometimes it is more inconvenient.
["artic" might be a better UK-English translation ;-) ]
It seems to me like a mix of C130J's - or old airframes upgraded to near C130J standards - and C17s would do a better job, for less money, and cost less to maintain. And be easier to fix if you land with a few holes in the airplane.
Back in the 1970s, in the UK, I think we made wrong decisions by scrapping TSR2 in favour of not-working (then) F111, and scrapping supersonic heavy harrier (think V/STOL, super-manouevrable F4). Not that TSR2 was perfect...
Now, in Europe, we've been making wrong decisions by throwing vast subsidies at Eurofighter and A400M. We could have saved money, and gotten a better plane by just buying F22, instead of building Eurofighter.