In case you needed re-assurance that the Airbus A400M is going to be a major player in the US military transport market, EADS last month posted the following chart on its web site:
So EADS projects selling more than 400 A400Ms in North America! Subtract 20 or 30 for Canada, and that still leaves a US fleet larger than the combined Boeing C-17s and Lockheed Martin C-130Js currently on order!
(Note to EADS: you may wish to refrain from listing your market projections for the Chinese market on the same slide as the US market for the same aircraft.)
But EADS' projections also change my thinking a little. Last week, I made the somewhat rash prediction that a Boeing/Antonov AN-70 would battle an EADS/Lockheed team offering the A400M.
I still thiink there could be a link between Boeing and Antonov. The AN-70 is too good of an airframe to pass up, and Boeing doesn't have any other options if the C-17 line expires in less than a few years.
But an EADS and Lockheed partnership now seems very unlikely. Lockheed is not going to simply cede a potential market of that size to a European competitor. Instead, I'm betting now that Lockheed will try in some way to respond. The question is: how?
Despite a difficult birth, the C-130J has proven itself as an able workhorse. But it is still no match on paper for the promised performance of the larger A400M. Lockheed has no time and no apparent source of funds to develop an all-new aircraft, but it doesn't have to abandon the C-130J entirely. If memory serves, Lockheed has spoken in the past of a "Fat Hercules"; basically, a wider version of the C-130J that can haul a bulkier payload.
Lockheed still has time on its side. The botched development of the A400M will keep the C-130J's current size and capability viable on the market until at least 2015.
Canada will never, ever, ever buy the A400M "Bratwurst".
We just rejected the Euro vaporware plane and committed to a 2 plane, Tactical/Strategic, Jerc/C17 fleet. 17 new Jercs on order and 4 x Globemasters (two already delivered)
And remember, Canada won the original engine competition and then the self-serving Euros screwed us, back stabbed us by picking a higher risk, higher price European engine choice.
Time for us to screw them back. With glee. Canuck schadenfreude, served up hockey style with a few elbows as we meet in the corner.
Besides, a single choice aircraft that does both airlift roles OK, but neither well is not a good aircraft to buy. It is a single platform compromise.
A comprised aircraft.
Go figure.
The header actually denotes the market for the type, not the actual product. I don't think anyone at EADS would be foolish enough to believe this is a sales projection.
Funny, I had this same thought for the whole EU. The Airbus is unflown, untested and what do they know about tactical "no shit" airlift? Antonov on the other hand knows it better than anyone in the biz.
The An-70 is one fine, fine aircraft and I do not expect much from the A400M.
Didn't Boeing issue a press release about joint-building An-70s a few years ago? She would look good in USAF markings.
The C-130 will fly on into history, but her days are numbered. The problem is, no one has built an aircraft that can perform in the environment that the C-130 operates in with the performance that she brings. We know that the An-70 will be close abut I am not sure about the A400M. Only history and time will tell.