What's new

Boeing brings forward C-17 line closure

They have the need of around 20 x heavy / strategic transport aircrafts, which doesn't necessarily means C17s. That's exactly why it would be far smarter to not go for additional C17s at high costs, but complement the fleet with actual force multipliers, that also have the capability of heavy / strategic transports and that's what A400, XC-2 or AN 70 offers too.
Considering IAF's order books are full for this and next year (MMRCA,Apache,Chinook,A330,Phalcon etc) for fast decision making. This can be a M777 story whole again.
So there is a chance for A400 IMHO.
 
.
Considering IAF's order books are full for this and next year (MMRCA,Apache,Chinook,A330,Phalcon etc) for fast decision making. This can be a M777 story whole again.
So there is a chance for A400 IMHO.

Actually IAF first needs to consider the A400 seriously and the fact that they "can't" show real interest in evaluating other aircrafts is the main problem. The decision on additional C17s however must be taken fast, because the production is ending and only a few of them are left for sale. So if they consider the procurement, they also have the funds available and then in makes sense to really evaluate if we get the most out of our money (6 x C17s => cost something between $2.4 and $3.6 billion Dollar!).
 
.
if I was India I would just buy more C-130J instead of A-400M and maybe talk about building some of it there.

impressive but most aircraft can do those insane moves, but you wouldn't be doing that in real life on a real mission though would you o_O

take for instance this Boeing 787-9
 
.
if I was India I would just buy more C-130J instead of A-400M and maybe talk about building some of it there.


impressive but most aircraft can do those insane moves, but you wouldn't be doing that in real life on a real mission though would you o_O

take for instance this Boeing 787-9
A400M fills a niche below the C-17. As a strategic airlifter, it has more speed, range and payload than the C-130J, but less than the C-17. As a tactical airlifter, it has a steep-approach assault landing capability that no other Western heavy-lift transport can match. It can operate autonomously at austere airstrips with unimproved runways and unleveled ramps.
 
.
A400M fills a niche below the C-17. As a strategic airlifter, it has more speed, range and payload than the C-130J, but less than the C-17. As a tactical airlifter, it has a steep-approach assault landing capability that no other Western heavy-lift transport can match. It can operate autonomously at austere airstrips with unimproved runways and unleveled ramps.

if you can get it for the right price go for it :D
seems they are trying to pitch to the U.S to buy like 200+ of them and retire the C-5A Galaxy fleet :woot:
 
.
if I was India I would just buy more C-130J instead of A-400M and maybe talk about building some of it there.

More C-130Js will come in for sure. Maybe finally peaking at 20-24 of them. However the local manufacture/building of those aircraft in India is a little too optimistic to consider. Parts of them viz. fuselage, wing sections etc can get done though.

@Abingdonboy; got an interesting view-point from an ex-VCAS of the IAF recently in course of a discussion. The IAF is mightily pleased with both the C-17s and C-130s. Both performance and serviceability has exceeded their expectations. So the 6 options for the C-17s have been recommended while lobbying for additional Herks. While this was something that was recommended much earlier, it was the (previous) MoD that sat on the proposal. Now with the change of guard, optimism is rife again.

He stated that augmenting air-lift capacity has now (finally) been accepted at MoD level and the IA has lent great support to the idea. While all the talk of Strategic Airlift seems to have captured the imagination of the Press and others, it is the "nuts and bolts" Airlift supportthat is really being pushed hard for, since the IA seriously needs to ensure a viable logistic support for the new formations being raised. So the old classifications of air-lifters have ceased to matter too much. The general idea now seems to be: to utilise the max capacity into the existing and re-activated airfields and ALGs. Or finding suitable aircraft to maximise through-put into those fields. That is where the C-130s and upgraded An-32s will work in tandem with the C-17s. It will be interesting to know whether the upgrade to the Sutlejs have improved its turn-around and serviceability issues?
 
.
if you can get it for the right price go for it :D
seems they are trying to pitch to the U.S to buy like 200+ of them and retire the C-5A Galaxy fleet :woot:
If we consider the news of 3rd lot of 8 c17 for IAF right and instead going for it if we order A400M then we could have 16 A440M in inventory ( price considered according to post #16)...this can compliment our many transport and tanker assets like it can well complement 16 c17 (strategic one), 6+ c-130j 30(tactical one), 6 il78mki ( heavy refuelers in IAF)....it will be just a force multiplier for the IAF....An-32 will be replaced by MTA.

1.As compliment to c17 & c130j-30:
Rheinmetall Defence Electronics is supplying the loadmaster control system for electronic cargo control. Loadmaster consists of a workstation and control panel, eight sidewall lock panels and a crew door panel. It provides efficient ground loading and airborne cargo drops.
The payload requirements include a range of military helicopters and vehicles, heavy engineering equipment, pallets and cargo containers.
The cargo bay can transport up to nine standard military pallets (2.23m × 2.74m), including two on the ramp, along with 58 troops seated along the sides or up to 120 fully equipped troops seated in four rows. For Medevac, it can carry up to 66 stretchers and 25 medical personnel.
The A400M can carry 116 paratroops and can air-drop them and their equipment either by parachute or gravity extraction. It can air-drop: single load up to 16t, multiple loads up to 25t total, 120 paratroops plus a wedge load of 6t, or up to 20 1t containers or pallets.
It can also perform simultaneous drops of paratroops and cargo (RAS / wedge or door loads) and very-low-level extraction (VLLE) of a single load up to 6.35t, or multiple loads up to 19t total weight. Gravity extraction can be performed for a single load up to 4t, or multiple loads up to 20t total weight.
The cargo compartment can be configured for cargo, vehicle or troop transport or air drop, a combination of these and for aero-medical evacuation. A single loadmaster is able to reconfigure the cargo compartment for different roles either in flight or on the ground. A powered crane installed in the ceiling area of the rear section of the fuselage has a five-ton capacity for loading from the ground and for cross-loading.
The rear-opening door has full compartment cross-section to allow axial load movement, roll-on and roll-off loading and for the air drop of large loads.

2. As complement to il 78mki:
A400M is convertible to a tactical tanker, with the ability to refuel a range of aircraft and helicopters within two hours. Flight Refuelling Ltd is supplying the 908E wing pod drogue system, which provides a fuel flow of up to 1,200kg/min for each pod, plus the centreline pallet-mounted hose drum unit fitted in the rear cargo bay, which provides a fuel flow of 1,800kg/min.
The A400M transport aircraft can be converted into a two-point tanker configuration within two hours.
The A400M tanker, with a fuel capacity of 50.5t (111,330lb), can be mounted with two additional cargo hold tanks of 5.7t of fuel each. The air-to-air refuelling is performed through two hose and drogue under-wing refuelling pods (1,500L/min flow rate) or through a centre-line fuselage refuelling unit (2,250L/min). The three video cameras installed in the aircraft enable the crew to monitor the refuelling mission.
The aircraft can fly at slow speeds and low altitudes to refuel helicopters, as well as at higher speeds and altitudes to refuel fighters such as Eurofighter, F/A-18Hornet and Rafale, as well as large aircraft including C295 and C-130 Hercules. It can also be equipped with a removable refuelling probe to receive fuel from another A400M (buddy refuelling).
It carries 61t of fuel as complement to 85.72t of il 78mki.
 
Last edited:
.
if I was India I would just buy more C-130J instead of A-400M and maybe talk about building some of it there.

If you were Indian, you would prefer the MTA, since it is in the same class and co-developed by India, therefor the clearly better choice for us. :)
Besides the C130J is no comparision for the A400, the latter can do everything the earlier can do, but better and do strategic lift roles too!
 
.
If you were Indian, you would prefer the MTA, since it is in the same class and co-developed by India, therefor the clearly better choice for us. :)
Besides the C130J is no comparision for the A400, the latter can do everything the earlier can do, but better and do strategic lift roles too!

MTA looks kinda like the EC-390 o_O
yeah the Atlas is superior to the Super Hercules
but you can buy 5 C-130Js instead of 2 A-400M while the A-400M can only carry what 17 tonnes more, and yeah it can fly further is and faster, but it's really up to your needs.

both are wonderful cargo/multirole planes.
 
.
A400M fills a niche below the C-17. As a strategic airlifter, it has more speed, range and payload than the C-130J, but less than the C-17. As a tactical airlifter, it has a steep-approach assault landing capability that no other Western heavy-lift transport can match. It can operate autonomously at austere airstrips with unimproved runways and unleveled ramps.

Looks pretty similar.
 
.
MTA looks kinda like the EC-390 o_O

I gues you mean the KC 390 of Embraer, they all are medium class aircrafts, meant for the same tactical roles.

yeah the Atlas is superior to the Super Hercules
but you can buy 5 C-130Js instead of 2 A-400M while the A-400M can only carry what 17 tonnes more, and yeah it can fly further is and faster, but it's really up to your needs.

You can have 10 x C130Js, but you still can't carry larger vehicles, aircrafts or oversized loads in a medium class aircrafts, nor can you fly it to strategic ranges. So it's not only better in anything the C130J does (it's faster, has more range, can carry more payload, can carry more fuel in tanker roles...) but also is much more capable as a transport aircraft itself, because of the bigger cargo hold. That's why in reality the 5 x C130 can only carry pallets or troops, while the 2 A400s can carry roughly 100 men and vehicles or or even aircrafts to most places where the C130 can be operated too. So it increases the tactical transport capability of the operator by far, without even adding the strategic advantages it offers.
 
.
According to Boeing, there were 10 white-tails remaining before the company recently sold two "to an undisclosed customer". The identity of this customer remains unknown.

In November Australia signed for four more aircraft, leaving just four of the white-tail C-17s available. Canada is reportedly interested in acquiring another aircraft, India has previously stated that it would like a further six (although the numbers on the line no longer remain for this to happen), and there are reports that New Zealand has expressed an interest in one or two as well.

No C-17 delivered to Algeria, Boeing confirms - IHS Jane's 360
 
.
I knew about Canada signing for an additional 1, didn't know about Australia signing for 4 more. I am finding it unlikely the IAF will receive any more now. Unfortunately for the IAF they happened to join the C-17 program too late in the day when the line was already coming to an end. Had the line been sustained for another 2-3 years and the story would be very different- they would likely have gone for 6-10 more. I find it interesting the IAF didn't move faster on this, they knew there were only 10 "white tails" up for grabs- perhaps it is a funds issue and this fiscal they are focussed on the Rafale purchase.


@sancho I guess the IAF is going to have to look at the A400 now, 10 C-17s simply isn't enough for the IAF's strategic transport fleet.
 
.
I knew about Canada signing for an additional 1, didn't know about Australia signing for 4 more. I am finding it unlikely the IAF will receive any more now. Unfortunately for the IAF they happened to join the C-17 program too late in the day when the line was already coming to an end. Had the line been sustained for another 2-3 years and the story would be very different- they would likely have gone for 6-10 more. I find it interesting the IAF didn't move faster on this, they knew there were only 10 "white tails" up for grabs- perhaps it is a funds issue and this fiscal they are focussed on the Rafale purchase.


@sancho I guess the IAF is going to have to look at the A400 now, 10 C-17s simply isn't enough for the IAF's strategic transport fleet.

I read about the interest of Australia before, but this is the first report that confirms a proper contract for 4 orders. If the other orders happens, IAF indeed won't get more as it seems. They wanted more, but the huge costs and elections surely made things difficult, but I'm not too unhappy about it as you know. Lets see what comes next and what solution IAF will get to replace the rest of the IL 76.
 
.
I read about the interest of Australia before, but this is the first report that confirms a proper contract for 4 orders. If the other orders happens, IAF indeed won't get more as it seems. They wanted more, but the huge costs and elections surely made things difficult, but I'm not too unhappy about it as you know. Lets see what comes next and what solution IAF will get to replace the rest of the IL 76.
I had heard the RAAF were interested also and this is, for me also, the first time I am seeing a confirmation of this. Canada and the RAF are also reportedly interested in 1 additional unit each (the RAF might even want 2) which means there aren't really any left for the IAF.

As such the IAF has a bit of a mess on its hands and it isn't really their fault. I wonder what they are thinking about. The IL-76 fleet has maybe another 5-6 years in it but it is going to need a replacement sooner rather than later because it is becoming a pain in the backside to keep them airworthy. I hope the IL-476 isn't brought in (although I know a lot of forum members/blogs will be proponents of this.

I'd much rather the IAF look at the A400 now, wasn't there some article somewhere that said the IAF had showed some interest in it? I think the article was in Strapost or something. This looks like the only viable option now.


A real shame no more C-17s will be ordered, I had been hoping for at least the follow-on order of 6.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom