Future European Strategic Transport

[Hobbes]

Just to illustrate what a strategic A380M might look like.

You'd have to relocate the cockpit to an An-124-like position. The A380 standard cockpit position is in front of the main deck.

 

[fightingirish]

Well, find those drawings of the Nord 600 again and call it in our times, the 'Airbus A600M'.
See thread 'SNCAN (Nord) 6000':

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sncan-nord-6000.7494/post-177746

 

[Apophenia]

If they're stupid enough to want to fight in their own country I don't know what to tell you.

My question could have been better phrased. I meant: Did Europeans still see flying MBTs to other continents as a strategic priority for them?

 

[EmoBirb]

My question could have been better phrased. I meant: Did Europeans still see flying MBTs to other continents as a strategic priority for them?

Debatable. Currently European (as in the European portion of NATO) strategic outlook is firmly concerned with Eurasia first and foremost. With the MENA region to a lesser degree, but in these cases transport via ship across the Mediterranean Sea seems more economical, effective and reasonable. But, as far as I am aware, nobody in Europe is planning to deploy Leopards and Leclercs in inner Mongolia, the Andes, Alaska or Australia anytime soon.

So, as @H_K pointed out, the main incentive for a "strategic airlift" type aircraft, which could only be supplied by Airbus, is to also capitalize on the commercial market regarding super heavy or oversized payloads which have been previously handled by the An-124 and An-225. An-124 is aging and Il-100 is still in development, so right now would be the time for Airbus to capitalize on that opportunity before a Russian or possibly even Chinese design comes around and takes up significant potential market share. Ultimately the military benefits are a nice extra, but not something that Europe in the current environment desperately needs. If anything something above the A400M that is more akin to the C-17 would seem more in line with current European interests, and something that could find further export customers, while the market for extremely large aircraft like the An-124 or C-5 is ultimately more limited.

 

[Scott Kenny]

while the market for extremely large aircraft like the An-124 or C-5 is ultimately more limited.

100% agreed. I mean, there's all of ~60x An-124s and ~130x C-5s.

So at best a total market of about 200 airframes.

 

[EmoBirb]

100% agreed. I mean, there's all of ~60x An-124s and ~130x C-5s.

So at best a total market of about 200 airframes.

Realistically the market is even smaller. The C-5 is exclusively in military use and the USAF won't replace it with a foreign design. The An-124 operated by the VKS will also be replaced by an Ilyushin design. This leaves around a dozen aircraft in the hands of civilian operators which will need eventual replacement. Maybe Airbus can leverage their standing and find new market opportunities, but I doubt you'd be able to sell more than 30 of such An-124 equivalents to civilian operators around the globe. While a C-17 equivalent is of less interest to the civilian sector, it has far higher potential on the military export market.

Which is why I said that from a military POV a C-17/Il-76 style aircraft is what European militaries would need more, and what the market would desire as well. While a C-5/An-124 equivalent would capitalize on a unique market niche which it could possibly expand upon but which would ultimately still remain a niche and the overall fleet of military and civilian machines would probably not exceed 50 aircraft at best.

 

[FighterJock]

Hell freazing over springs to mind sadly in regards to a future foreign large strategic transport purchase by the USAF, I would think that the USAF would rather go on it's own in terms of a replacement for the C-5 Galaxy.