Todj, I dont often disagee with you but this is one of those rare occassions.
What? You disagree with me! How dare you!
The C-130J-30 has a unitary cost of USD$90m or NZD110m if we use todays rates which for the USD-NZD are at historical highs at over 0.80+ pts - however that is entirely due to the current weakness USD and the carry trade seeing the NZD (and the AUD as safe havens). The current USD-NZD spot rates will over time rebalance back to historical averages. The USD will strengthen and the NZD will weaken. Something which RBNZ Governor Alan Bollard spoke of last month. It is always an imprecise science but it is far better to use as economists do, the cyclic 60 month average trading rate to get an estimation which is arround the 0.60 pts mark. This provides for a more realistic unitary cost of of a C-130J-30 of around NZD$150m. Therefore the instead of being three times the cost the it is more likely double using the A-400M cost of Eur 157m (NZD275m). Again the Euro is at an all-time high at 0.57 pts up from its historical average of around 0.50pts. There is also a market expectation that the NZD will ease slightly to the Euro. However the volitility of the NZD-Eur is no way as variable as the USD. It needs also to be pointed out that the Eur157m cost includes the EADS 3 year introduction of type support package which is more comprehensive than the one offered by LM one its USD90m sticker price. That needs to be factored into the equation as well and may well lift the C130 IOT over the the USD100m mark. The UK MinDef study which I posted about some time back found that the A400M operational costs were essentially the same as the C-130H and only 10% more than the C-130J-30. Incidently, the C-17 was found to cost GBP42000 pfh to operate nearly three times the cost of the A400M.
If you were using figures for the C-130J-30, then you and I were indeed talking about different aircraft, in addition to using different numbers. I was talking about the C-130J, not the lengthened J-30. The principal differences between the two AFAIK has to deal with length/internal volume and max load weight. The J-30 has a greater volume due to the extra length, but IIRC has a max load ~1,000kg less than a 'regular' C-130J. Another area of key difference in our comparisons is the estimates for the aircraft cost. The estimated purchase cost (and yes, we all should know by now there are so many different types of 'purchase' cost) I was using for the C-130J was/is ~ USD$67 mil. per aircraft, therefore a figure of USD$90 mil. per aircraft for a C-130J-30 is itself over 30% higher than the aircraft cost estimate I was using. Such differences in figures can have a dramatic impact on the final estimates.
As mentioned previously, the per aircraft cost figure I have been using for the A400M comes from German estimates regarding the per aircraft cost for the pending order for the Luftwaffe. As close as I can make out, the resulting estimate of between ~135-150 mil. € per aircraft for the A400M is the same 'purchase cost' as the estimated USD$67 mil. per C-130J 'purchase cost'. In effect, attempting to get the cost comparison between the C-130J and A400m as close to an 'apples to apples' cost comparison as I can get it.
Of course I can see the the arguments against the A-400M over its initially high acquisition price - double that of the C-130-J. However it does all that the J does and many things that the J cannot do. It is those things that the J can't do that we need and will need more of. It is a substantially superior solution for our needs. That is obviously recognised by the NZDF who pencilled it in the documents to Cabinet. Double the volume, 70% greater payload faster and longer, can carry 2 LAV's, 2 LUH's, the NH-90 and the sprite, nine L463's and various outsized loads which are a huge consideration in Humanitarian - Disaster Relief in those vital first 48 hours. Plus we would not need two converted airliners or as many C-130's.
Whether it is 4 airframes or 3 or just 2, whatever way it is sliced and diced - the point is that the A-400M offers a capability that we need that the C-130J-30 cannot deliver and is a capability that we need.
There is no question that the A400M does virtually everything the C-130J does, but more/better. The only area which the C-130 likely out performs the A400M is in short field performance, which IMO should not be a significant factor. What I do question is just how much 'better' the A400M is over the C-130J in a number of areas, and whether this improvement justifies spending two to three times as much on an airlifter.
Now, I readily admit I have an attitude of 'prove it' towards many of the cost and capability estimates coming out of Airbus Military about the A400M. This suspicion has everything to do with how often the cost and capability claims coming out of an EADS venture has failed (in a negative way) to meet up with what the manufacturer has claimed. Programmes like the A400M, A330 MRTT/KC-30, NH 90, and Tiger ARH, all of these programmes have suffered delays to service entry, spikes to purchase and/or through life costs, or reductions in platform capability from planned capability. For some programmes, all three have occurred.
With that in mind, I am less than certain that the A400M estimates of only ~10% higher flight-hour/operating cost than that of a C-130J-30. Something I am far more sure of is that certain outsized cargoes are too much for the A400M. A pair of combat weight NZLAV's for instance. Per the Army site, the combat weight of an NZLAV is 19.85 tonnes, or 39.7 tonnes for a pair of them. Per the Airbus Military site, the max load for the A400M is 37,000 kg/37 tonnes. Also worth noting in this instance, is that while the goal was for the A400M to have a max payload of 37 tonnes, there has been significant problems doing so, and IIRC the A400M had not been able to get much past a 30 tonne max payload. Either way, whether the 30 or 37 tonne figure is used, that means the A400M can only really lift a single NZLAV at a time. AFAIK though that is still more than a C-130J can manage, since the NZLAV is about a tonne over the C-130J max payload.
What that ends up boiling down to in my book, is for ~2-3 x as much purchase cost, the RNZAF can replace the current C-130H Herc with aircraft able airlift in the NZLAV and other outsized loads. There is definately some utility in being able to occasionally airlift such outsized or heavy loads, but IMO that situation does not occur enough to justify replacing the entire C-130H fleet with an aircraft able to fufill that sort of mission, when the aircraft has so much greater a purchase price.
As a replacement for the Broomsticks, which are of no where near such utility and currently are incurring C-17 level operating costs for the little they currently do, the situation is definately different.
Now, IMO looking at replacing the C-130H with smaller airlifters is worth further consideration. Particularly if done as part of a 'hi-lo' airlift mix with 2-3 A400M's as the 'hi' airlift. Presently, when a RNZAF C-130H does an airlift mission how often are they flying at max payload or close to it? How often at they flying at or below the max payload for something smaller like a C-27J (IIRC max payload of 10 tonnes) or a C-295 (~9 tonnes). If much of the time these smaller airlifters could fufill the role the C-130H has, they would likely be more efficient than even a C-130J would, assuming the total number of different types of airlifters was kept to a minimum so that some sort of efficiencies of scale could be maintained.
A key point regarding airlift which I wish to remind people of. The determination of platforms, or what platform mix is needed is not just about which platform can lift
nn payload, of
xx space/volume, and transport is
yy distance. It is also about the ability to conduct concurrent airlift ops, and the ability to maintain an airlift capacity when needed despite ongoing operations as well as meeting training and maintenance requirements. Having a small number of larger/more expensive airlifters only helps with the first set of metrics. It does not help, and in fact can hurt the ability to maintain concurrent operational tempos, nevermind maintain an additional airlift capacity for emergencies despite the need to maintain the airlift fleet and/or train the pilots & crew.
There is after all a reason for 8 being the target number of C-130J's to replace the current 5 C-130H's in RNZAF service.
-Cheers
