This is total nonsense!

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I will be surprised if the actual total unit costs – including development costs – come in below the C-17 figure (at 2007 prices, for the pendants out there) offered to the partner nations in 1999/2000.

You appear to have no knowledge either of the financial arrangements or costs of A400M.

You’d struggle to come up with a less accurate statement, but nice try. However, I’ll accept that my reference to amortization left room for misinterpretation. At the end of the day, the NRCs will have to be paid by someone. Maybe I’m underestimating the type’s export potential, but I struggle to believe that we’ll see even the baseline figure of 180 being realized. I have nothing personal against the type, and any tactical assets will prove valuable in the field, I just personally think it’s over-cost and undersized.

So? We’re talking comparatives, not absolutes.

Yes we are. Which is why I said that the C-17 offers better value for money (payload/volume/range vs. cost). I wouldn’t compare an A400M to a C-5M, but the A400M vs. C-17 comparison is an appropriate one.

How is a C-17 more operationally flexible than two A400M, which is the true comparison?

Depends on your view of the real-life comparative costs…

You’re arguing – again – for scrapping Hercules, etc.

Not so. But a C-27J/C-17 combo does have a certain appeal…

The logic of your argument is “bigger is better”. Not so – there is a right size for each task.

No, the basis of my argument is that the actual costs of the A400M will probably surprise you. I don’t disagree that there is a right size for each task, but I am concerned that since the A400M design was frozen we have learnt the lesson that lighter-weight AFVs do not offer suitable protection against 155mm IEDs and double digit RPGs. Germany’s IFV requirements were already pushing the limits of the A400M’s abilities before the lessons of OEF/OIF were learnt.

Twice the size, twice the maintenance.

This isn’t backed-up by real-world numbers, but again let’s agree to disagree. I will be fascinated to see the actual comparative DOCs from the UK MoD.

What you don’t seem to get is how many times will the 77 ton capacity be used in a year?

You’re missing the point. As I’ve already said, having the capability of a C-17 rather than A400M doesn’t mean that you have to use the 77 ton load capability, it simply means that you have far greater operational flexibility – especially if operating in coordination with U.S. forces – and substantially reduces the likelihood of cubing out.

One of the key capabilities offered by the A400M is its steep descent rate into austere airstrips, which is seen as reducing vulnerability to AAA. This dictated the selection of props instead of fans, and was – along with Euro politics and some extraordinary claims for the A400M’s unit price – the reason why the C-17 was looked over. In retrospect the C-17 clearly offers far better value for money (payload/volume/range vs. cost).

The schedule projected for TP400 development program was pure fantasy from day 1, predicated on ‘equivalent’ timescales associated with civilian programs such as derivatives of the Trent. As with the overnight merging of two previously competing engine offerings from Snecma/Fiat and RRD, it provoked remarkably little comment at the time. EPI is to blame for proposing an unrealistic development program, but AMC is equally guilty of being so gullible as to believe it!

P&WC claims innocence in powering Z-10

China illegally uses Canadian engine for combat helicopter

What utter ********. 😡 And for those who still doubt that Agusta provided the most Western assistance on the project, the final couple of paras may prove enlightening.

Highly unlikely. All available 412s are ending up in the Mid East. The rumor that Mexico is negotiating for additional Black Hawks is more believable.

As requested.

perhaps you can clarify one point for me: the dimensional compatibility with the Chinook thing always confused me. It seems like the C-27J is larger in every dimension (except length) than the C-295, so does the C-295 actually take some load that the C-27J won’t (which i don’t see) or is it that the C-295 is the smallest/cheapest aircraft that will accomodate a Chinook load or something else entirely?

Yes, the C-295 had the longer cabin (by 9 – 13ft, depending on which ramp load argument you believed) and – perhaps surprisingly – a marginally larger floor area, though the C-27J had the wider cabin and higher overall volume. And, yes, there were a handful of CH-47 loads that the C-27J could not carry. However, the ‘best value’ approach to DoD evaluation, which is required to allow ‘off-the-shelf’ competitive procurement to succeed, specifies a combination of ‘baseline’ and ‘objective’ requirements. In the case of JCA, the C-27J was able to offset the few Army loads it could not carry by offering additional capability in terms of a 25% greater mission load and some unique loads/load combinations, especially when the AF’s requirements were added.

also, can you give any number on how expensive each are to operate?

That’s pretty subjective, and depends on which camp you listened to. The C-27J was typically 55% more thirsty than the C-295, has a 30-40% higher list price (but not necessarily a higher bid price; who knows) and – arguably – had fewer volume cost benefits than the C-295 (due to its claimed partial commonality with the CN-235). On the other hand, the C-27J offered clear logistics and systems commonality with the C-130J, plus a range of cost-benefit arguments in terms of capability (range, payload, field length, etc.). The Spartan’s field performance (and heritage) was probably of special interest to the end user.

Just curious…what was your role in the process?

Industry-related only; I had no influence whatsover over the process, I was simply in a fortunate position to ‘look over the shoulder’ of both teams. :diablo:

This week’s Av Week also covers the program.

Spain also have a NOTAR in 1957!!!!!

A British company founded by a Spanish engineer flew a notar in 1944. See Cierva W.9.