Do the RAF really want the A400m?

Yes and no.
The C-17 IS replacing the C-141. Note that C-141 units are being converted
to C-17s. At the same time, it's tactical abilities allow it to pick up some
of the C-130's missions, while it's cargo capacity, both size & weight,
allow it to pick up some C-5 missions. In that sense it is really a new
airplane. If the C-17 were replacing the C-130 I doubt AMC would be buying
150 C-130Js and ugrading hundreds more with an AMP. The YC-14 and YC-15 were
designed to replace the C-130 but it was realized that a larger design was
needed. Not long ago there was an excellent Wings/Airpower article covering
this evolution in detail.

The C-17 can do a lot of tactical work but is still too large for many
missions, or at least larger than required. And while it can perform the
strategic airlift mission very well, it cannot touch the C-5's
range/payload. As for the M-1/rest is just fluff comment, the C-17 was
designed to haul an M-1 as just about anything else would be easy by
comparison. However, AMC hauls very few tanks but loads of other large
cargo, both palletized and rolling stock. Hardly fluff.

Curt


"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:8CcXc.14360$ni.13641@okepread01...
"Brett" wrote
"Lyle" wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
C-17 is meant to replace the C-141

The last C-141C will be retired to Davis-Montham AFB by the end of 2006,
so
the remark should be: the designated C-141 replacement will be the C-17.

The C-17 isn't really a C-141 replacement. The 141 was/is a strategic
airlift
aircraft. The C-130 and C-17 are designed for tactical airlift, but the
C-17
fulfills the strategic role well enough, that it is considered dual
purpose. It can
launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle
zone.

I believe, like the YC-14 and YC-15, the major goal was to be able to
carry an
M-1 tank that could roll off. The rest is just fluff.