The A400M can carry the Army’s fancy new Stryker and MRAP vehicles, the C-130J cannot.
An improved C-130 “widebody” has been discussed by Lockheed Martin, but they are too cash strapped dealing with the F-35 cost overruns to fund the design themselves.
Currently, the Air Force is using C-17s to move these vehicles aroun in theater, which is a waste of the C-17s purpose as a strategic airlifter, not a tactical one.
In order to accomodate these new land vehicles, either the US would have to sink a few billion into development of a C-130XL, have a contest for a new design, or buy the A400M off the shelf at very attractive prices.
The cheapest and quickest solution is to purchase some A400Ms to retire our oldest C-130s.
There is also an avionics update and re-engineing program for the C-5. It was determined by the bean counters that the oldest C-5As were too old to last long enough for the re-engineing to pay for itself, so only the C-5Bs are being upgraded to C-5Ms. As the older C-5As are retires, something needs to fill that gap.
http://www.generaldynamics.com/prod_serv/combat/Stryker/Stryker%20Offloading%20From%20C-130.jpg
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/stryker-5.jpg
Report of DoD certification of C130 being able to carry Stryker: http://www.army.mil/features/strykerOE, they have flown Stryker around in Iraq in 2004 when I was there.........what are you talking about? Has something changed?
A lot of these specialized vehicles like the MRAP will stay in that theater and are tailored to a specific mission/task. These vehicles will not be the normal vehicles that are structurally assigned by TOE past these campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
An A400 can't really give you much more than a stretched 130J. Neither can carry a M109 or M1..... Hell, the stretched 130 can carry MORE troops a more litters! There is no huge added benefit when it comes to the transport of vehicles other than for the M113 and Stryker, which the C130 can only carry one of, and the A400 two.
A C130J-30 and A400 compare like this:
Pallets 8 vs. 9
Litters 97 vs. 66
CDS Bundles 24 each
Cargo floor length 55 vs. 58 ft.
Combat troops 128 vs. 120
Paratroopers 92 vs. 120
Stryker 1 vs. 2
M113 1 vs. 2
M1 0 vs. 0
M2 0 vs. 0
M109 0 vs. 0
HIMARS 1 vs. 1
You don't get any real payoff in added payload, width, length, etc unless you pass certain thresholds. If you increase the payload of a C17 by 15% and make it 5 inches wider and 2 feet longer you'd see no real new capabilities. It wouldn't be able to really carry anything that it can't already. It's like adding 5mm of more steel to the side of a Bradley turret. All RPGs that punch through the current armor will still punch through with the added 5mm and there is no advantage other than on paper.
The A400 is for many in Europe a huge leap forward. Realize the Germans had to pay some former Soviet Republics and us to get stuff to Afghanistan and their little C-160 simply can't do much at those altitudes, temperatures etc.......... They had nothing with any legs, nor even anything that had the payload to carry a single APC. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/transall/ For many of these European nations this is there C130, C17 and C5, it's their jack of all trades which attempts to do everything, sort of like a C17, only on the cheap and with far less capabilities. For us, the difference between a stretched 130 and A400 would be a wash.
http://cc-130j.ca/wp-content/pdfs/Spec_Book.pdf (A good read)
