The A400M is going to lift 35 tons against the 17+ tons of the 130J. The cruise speed is expected to be 422 kts which is considerably faster than a 130J. The A400M is going to lift a Patriot and launcher. Or two Pumas. Have you ever seen a helicopter being carried in a Herk. I once saw a picture on an A109 (I think) being transported in a Belgian C130. The A109 had be be disassembled prior to loading.
The A400M is certainly not going to be a rival to the C17. It’s cargo capability will however exceed that of the C130 and C160 by a considerable margin.
The AN70 would have been an excellent basis for the A400M and we would have saved millions- but then, you all know that.

That is what I meant, the A400M is neither a theatre tactical airlifter, nor a real strategic airlifter. It is something in the middle which means that it won´t be perfect for either role. Personally I would rather prefer 24 AN-124 (and some 747F if neeeded) in a european squadron shared by EU members with national owned C-130J and Casa 295. The heavies could be offered for civilian use if not needed by the military, while the smaller medium and light types would be enough for everyday needs. In an out-of-area mission the heavies fly the cargo to the next available bigger airport. The mediums and light then carry the cargo to the forward areas. I´m not sure if we will ever need to airdrop a Puma IFV. 😉

I think for a small country you should either use a fleet of medium airlifter liek the C-130, or a mix of jets and smaller prop lifters.

So for me a mix of :

C-295 + C-17 or AN-124 or even 747F makes sense
The C-27J is an alternative just a bit more expensive and complicated
The C-130 is the typical medium solution
A-400 is not yet a really large and heavy freighter and not a medium anymore, kind of jack of all trades, master of none.
Above them are the jet powered airlifters. With the C-17 being expensive but yet having a tactical role, while the rest are strategic types.

Then we have the GR9 replacement issue. Would you use Typhoon for cab-rank CAS?. Would we trust a UCAV to do CAS in close contact with friendlies. Obviously we’re talking of a scenario best part of a decade from now and, even then, I dont think either of those are particularly practical solutions to be honest. The Typhoon/JSF/UCAV mix seemed well thought out and Rafale will screw that up mightily.

Yes especially for CAs I would prefer the EF to the F-35C. Both needs conventional runways, but EF has 2 engines and I can hang much more different ordance on it wing, then on the F-35C, which also looses the stealth feature if carrying external loads. A EF with a LDP and Brimstone seems better suited for CAS, then an F-35C with SDB JDAMs. Especially as EF could use them as well.

It is an interesting problem. Without the sourcecodes the UK would be unable to integrate UK built weapons into the F-35 without US aproval and without paying the US for the integration. So if a US comapny has a comparable product that would face competition from the UK product they might be not too enthusiastic about integrating the UK product. If they charge too much fpr the weapons integration, then they ca nkill the whole program. It also means that the UK could not have its own SLEP with european avionics during the servicelife of the fighter. Either pick the US program, or pay extra for th integration of you design.
That all gives the US control over much of the UKs defence industry.

Now, look at the french option. I think we can assume that the UK would get everything they want from the french. In fact the integration of UK weapons into Rafale would be also good for the French. It would also help to strengthen the european industry.

Just looking at the industry options I would be for the French buy, even if the UK gets more access to F-35 secrets.

So they get an A300-600 from LH. As HF (Hapag Fly) has leased one from LH and wants to end the lease early.

Still fully capable of safe operations in controlled airspace.

Jpana would be an excellent buyer.

Apart from that I agree with SOC.

They have five FULCRUMs left, with four being flyable…why are they bothering with an upgrade at all? If they’re happy with the FULCRUM, just buy some second hand jets. It’d seem that this would be a better use of money than to upgrade four or five old aircraft.

And no B-1, B-2, or B-52 was shot down. You simply cannot hide a shootdown of a strategic bomber, one which is an accountable item under the START treaty. If Serbia claimed that they downed more fighter aircraft, it’d be believable to an extent (but still provable pretty conclusively one way or the other). But a strategic asset? Nice try.

Actually neither is really flyable in the meaning of serviceable or operational, although they are maintained in a close to flyable standard.