French C-17?
Thread Starter
French C-17?
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
EXCLUSIVE: France confirms interest in Boeing C-17
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 72
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: "Paradiso”
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 Facts...
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
YouTube - Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Short Feild Landing Then Backup
Sorry mate, you're way off.
Cheers!
ELS
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
YouTube - Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Short Feild Landing Then Backup
Sorry mate, you're way off.
Cheers!
ELS
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 4th Apr 2009 at 23:27.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tactical C17
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 in the dirt
YouTube - C-17 Landing on dirt strip in Afghanistan
YouTube - C-17 Landing on dirt strip in Afghanistan
Dirt surface operations may be limited, but they make for great videos.
YouTube - C-17 Landing on dirt strip in Afghanistan
Dirt surface operations may be limited, but they make for great videos.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From FlightGlobal:
By buying USAF slots, the Canadians and Aussies managed to get theirs in about 12 months from order.
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.
Defence ministry officials wrote to the US Air Force ....
Seems that carrying these is the only real argument in favor of the A400 left..
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
FSTA is on track but will only help with the STRAT/AR role.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
As for air-air refuelling, not simple I grant you but it doesn't take Einstein...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenish Knight
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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