Yes but the engine would still be partly built by Rolls Royce with its industrial partners for every A400M produced and that would not be lost I don’t think it would be possible for airbus to drop Rolls Royce from the engine program. The other work the UK does for the A400M program is parts of the wings and flaps which are built at the airbus plant in Filton, Bristol some of that work could be reallocated to France. The A400M program is managed commercially rather than the traditional political work share agreements therefore it is more than likely work would stay in the UK. If work was moved around it would increase the costs of the program and add delays which all partner nations would want to avoid. For example South Africa recently cancelled its order for the aircraft and looks unlikely to lose its work share because of these issues. The UK has a much greater stake in the program and has the facilities to produce the wings in an airbus factory that specialises in that job.

I agree with Kev and you a follow on order would be logical hence why I’m suggesting it and would be a need rather than a want if things progress as they are likely to do so. More C-17’s are pretty much needed an additional 2 would be great but more would be excellent.

Hot Charlie we are going from 5 types to 4 under current official plans but could go to 3 if we wanted and while having the A400M inbetween the C-130J and C-17 will be more efficient. From a support perspective it is less efficient as you need to train crews for different aircraft, train the maintainers for the different types and maintain different spares stocks.

Yes admittedly the exchange rates do have a large influence on the price on paper of each aircraft but there is a point in my mind where the cost vs. capability equation meet and I would admit it is maybe much lower than others. If we did ditch the A400M some work share would be lost but I would argue not all as it would cost time and money to reallocate the work to other partners. I do like the A400M and see that it has strong advantages and would like to see it in RAF service but I would like to see more C-17’s acquired to maintain an ability to move outsize loads strategic distances. We are the only European nation that has the capability within our own armed forces and not as a lease from a Ukrainian/Russian company although we do use their services. I would favour an all or nothing approach if the A400M actually is successful and is delivered to specification. What I mean by that is replacing the current C-130J fleet with A400M’s later in the production run by that time the C-130J fleet should be in its early 20’s. They could either be sold or retired as they have had a very busy life in RAF service and if current operations continue and the A400M delays persist they will almost be needing replaced.

Cola very nice post interesting indeed any idea what effect thrust vectoring would have on takeoff performance? I would hope for a small improvement or increase in safety would be possible. Furthermore regarding the CVF deck layout I would imagine the minor details are subject to change rather than set in stone and as we all know built with change in mind so should be flexible enough. Changing it around would cost money but should not be a problem as the deck is a long way off from being built and fitted out.

Stevo, I doubt that the A400M is rated with a higher fatigue life as it would seem illogical and in ways irrelevant. For example the C-5B Galaxy reportedly still has around 80% of its fatigue life remaining and they are old aircraft so the C-17 will not run out of fatigue life for a very long time and are likely to become obsolete before airframe life diminishes. Furthermore for the UK we already operate the C-17 so that will help from the support cost perspective and it will also allow for a much more capable fleet over the service period. Either way we still have to operate and support the current fleet of C-17 so when you skip adding an additional type to the service you will save money in the long term. Cost’s can be further reduced for upgrades if we follow any precedent set by the USAF which will benefit us thanks to the large number of airframes they will possibly be upgrading.

From a fuel burn perspective the A400M’s turboprops have an advantage but the USAF is trialling alternatives such as synthetic fuels as well as organic bio fuels this will help offset fuel costs in future. In addition engine technology is ever advancing and the USAF has a higher chance of replacing the engines on the C-17 when technology advances than the EU nations have of replacing the TP400-D6 engine on the A400M.

H K the tanking capability is a non-issue for the UK due to the FSTA contract which is very close to delivering aircraft. The pricing info I am going by is from Aviation Week which I would argue is a sound and reputable source. The UK also has in service 24 C-130J’s that could do the tactical work and missions that the C-17 would not be suited and I am not suggesting retiring them additional C-130J’s could also be bought if needed.

Where does that pricing information come from? I’m not disputing it as such but if it were true the UK would have ditched the A400M by now and acquired many more C-17’s. Since this has not happened I can only assume the information is inaccurate or incorrect. For the main purchasers of the aircraft France and Germany it is not about capability it is about work share and independence that producing their own design gives them.

If the A400M is above 65-70% of the cost of a C-17 then I would strongly advocate ditching it especially for the RAF which already operates and supports the C-17. Doing so would be very wise in both the long and short term as it would keep the C-17 line open and keep support costs down in the longer term. Furthermore an attractive deal should be available from Boeing the USAF and congress as there is talk of wanting to keep the C-17 line open as long as possible to determine the long term impact of current operations on the airlift fleet.

Really? I didn’t know that could you point me to a source please as that’s pretty darn interesting. I’m not saying I don’t believe you but it comes as news to me although I don’t see why not after all it is a massive hull with growth margins. Would adding more turbines in anyway increase the top speed, I would imagine not due to the sizing of the electric motors driving the shafts. Furthermore adding more turbines would eat a fair chunk out of the range and time on station so would require more replenishment.

If there is room for additional turbines would it have been anywhere near a good idea to install 4 WR-21’s instead of 2 MT-30’s the reason I say this is lower fuel burn, more redundancy and commonality with the Type 45. The commonality would allow the same people to maintain the turbines and the same spares stock to be used across the fleet. If needed later the WR-21’s could be replaced with the MT-30 giving a massive boost in power. The downside would be increased acquisition cost and possibly fuel burn when at the higher end of the speed range and power need but this would be rare as most of the time they would be cruising along.

One of the problems is the C-5’s do have airframe life left it’s just that they are so old and need a good updating something that the C-5M sorts. I don’t see the An-124 getting accepted over something that is already being done but a PFI could work but i would love a westernised An-124. It would be the ideal NATO SALIS follow on.