Problem? No problem. Just a discussion largely triggered by #419 above.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, so? Military hardware is also a source of innovation money spend locally. You have seen it with the KC-45 saga, unacceptable for US politicians that the European a/c was chosen. So what is the problem here?

The "problem" is the 17 million posts here stating that capacities of one aircraft over the other was/is the driver behind the choices made in the US-tanker or the EU-transport competitions.

Personally, as a taxpayer I would not mind governments buying tried-and-tested off-the-shelf products from an ally, but I understand that sometimes in the long term it is better to "overspend" on a new local product to drive home-town innovation.

Let's just call a spade a spade.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, so? Military hardware is also a source of innovation money spend locally. You have seen it with the KC-45 saga, unacceptable for US politicians that the European a/c was chosen. So what is the problem here?

There is no problem with it, as long as you recognize it. You also have to recognize that in addition to internal innovation/success, you can have internal failures in the development and that not every program setback is the result of some grand foreign conspiracy against the program.

Slug71 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

GRIVely wrote:

Any A400M's involved in Caribbean hurricane relief? Seems like it would be a good mission for them.

Yup. RAF has been sending them to the Caribbean.
Seen on twitter.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41213399


Looks like the French have also sent at least one over too. Saw a clip on twitter where a Puma helo and other supplies were being unloaded.

Just seen a post on Twitter that German A400Ms are assisting the Dutch in the Caribbean too.

Slug71 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Yup. RAF has been sending them to the Caribbean.
Seen on twitter.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41213399


Looks like the French have also sent at least one over too. Saw a clip on twitter where a Puma helo and other supplies were being unloaded.

Just seen a post on Twitter that German A400Ms are assisting the Dutch in the Caribbean too.

Nice to see the EU members helping each other out.

This current spate of operations will help show just how desirable it is to have a mixed fleet of capabilities. ALL the transport aircraft, working together.

The bigger, long ranged C-17 and A330 Voyagers, to shift in bulk. A400M and Hercules to get the supplies and capabilities into needed locations. Anyone who is splitting hairs and going "mine is bigger than yours!" isn't getting the lessons of this disaster, which are that the whole cross-platform and cross-national fleet can work together in harmony leveraging individual abilities of the aircraft where needed.

I would like to see more C-17s in the mix but too late now. They are desirable but also a little expensive so orders were limited. McDD offered to build the RAF a C-17K with RB211-535E4 engines at one stage....

The program reaches a new milestone as Airbus is delivering its 50th A400M aircraft today.

Airbus A3400M -180 54 54+11 Luftwaffe delivery 27sep17 SVQ-ETNW ex A4M054

KarelXWB wrote:

The program reaches a new milestone as Airbus is delivering its 50th A400M aircraft today.

Airbus A3400M -180 54 54+11 Luftwaffe delivery 27sep17 SVQ-ETNW ex A4M054

Congrats to the Luftwaffe and Airbus. Wonder if this frame includes the "Pack 2" PGB?

MSN 59 has been delivered:

Airbus A400M -180 59 54+13 Luftwaffe delivery 29sep17 SVQ-ETNW ex A4M059

Funnily enough the SAAF rated the C160 better than the C130 during the 20 year Border War.

Balerit wrote:

Funnily enough the SAAF rated the C160 better than the C130 during the 20 year Border War.

I think it really depends on what you use for which mission. We can easily sort some of the modern transporters by size, and therefore capability. On the low end we have the C235 and the C-5 on the other. For troop insertion/extraction and supplies the smaller, more versatile frame is obviously better suited. For transoceanic invasions you really want the largest you can get. It does not surprise me that the SAAF preferred the simpler, smaller C160 in their regional conflict. Similarly, the A400 may work in one place (Germany) but does not meet the requirements of another (USA).

French A400M flies first operational mission (tactical) to Niger

A French air force A400M transport aircraft has carried out its first operational mission to Niger, carrying helicopters, freight and personnel directly from France onto a semi-prepared dirt landing strip.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?o ... Itemid=110

And,

Airbus defense unit freezes capex, may miss cash goals

Airbus Defence and Space has frozen capital spending and urged its 34,000 staff to take “drastic measures” to save cash as it faces the prospect of missing 2017 cash targets by hundreds of millions of euros, according to a memo seen by Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1CA0RY

And,

Thales to supply additional A400M flight simulators for French and German forces

Thales has been contracted by Airbus to supply additional A400M full-flight simulators (FFS) for the French and German airforces. The two new simulators will be used to train A400M crews in complex missions such as in-flight refuelling and low-level tactical operations in a safe environment.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ry-5941585

Pioneers: MTU and German Armed Forces Conclude Maintenance Framework Agreement to Support the TP400-D6 Engine for the A400M Fleet

http://www.aviationpros.com/press_relea ... 400m-fleet

Hopefully this will help keep their A400M's in the air.

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 58 ZM416 Royal Air Force delivery 17oct17 SVQ-BZZ ex A4M058

KarelXWB wrote:

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 58 ZM416 Royal Air Force delivery 17oct17 SVQ-BZZ ex A4M058

That was quick. Two weeks after the last delivery!

It seems very difficult to determine the first flight dates for the A400?

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 60 ZM417 Royal Air Force delivery 19oct17 SVQ-BZZ ex A4M060

KarelXWB wrote:

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 60 ZM417 Royal Air Force delivery 19oct17 SVQ-BZZ ex A4M060

Wow! This has to be the quickest run of deliveries? I'm guessing these birds were sitting around waiting for the PGB fix?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0m-442722/ says:

Airbus incurred a fresh charge of €80 million ($93 million) against its A400M programme in the third quarter of this year, as the company remains in discussion with its European customers over delays to the tactical transport.

Detailed on 31 October, the new sum – which Airbus says is linked to "the production adjustment and liquidated damages incurred", takes the company's total charges taken against the A400M this year to €150 million.

12 frames were delivered over the first 9 months of the year, and the 50th overall unit was delivered. Backlog is 122 frames.

Looking forward:

Achievement of the contractual technical capabilities and associated costs remain highly challenging. There are also challenges remaining on securing sufficient export orders in time, on cost reductions, industrial efficiency and commercial exposure, which could all impact the programme significantly

Talks are being held with regard to delivery schedule and the production rate is being adjusted in a way that "gives a bit more time to catch the export orders in the outer years".

KarelXWB wrote:

A400M program takes another $1.3 billion charge:

Airbus (AIR.PA) called for new talks with European governments to ease "heavy penalties" for delays to its A400M military aircraft on Wednesday, after taking a fresh 1.2-billion-euro ($1.3 billion) charge in the latest blow to Europe's largest defense project.

Chief Executive Tom Enders told reporters the aerospace group was still paying for the "original sin" of striking an unrealistic procurement deal when the plane was launched in 2003.

Airbus won a 3.5 billion euro bailout from seven European NATO nations in 2010 after being saddled with liability for wild cost overruns on its engines.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN1610MD

Discussions slip to February next year.

BERLIN (Reuters) - NATO buyer nations for the European A400M military transport plane have postponed a ministerial meeting on the troubled program for three months until February, said two sources familiar with the 20 billion euro project.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1DA1NG

Slug71 wrote:

Discussions slip to February next year.

BERLIN (Reuters) - NATO buyer nations for the European A400M military transport plane have postponed a ministerial meeting on the troubled program for three months until February, said two sources familiar with the 20 billion euro project.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1DA1NG

I guessed the reason even before I opened it -- Angie needs to get her house in order first.

Thus it will be the Germans that are delaying any relief for Airbus, and it's also (according to the article) the Germans who are the least likely to grant such relief.

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 61 54+14 Luftwaffe delivery 17nov17 SVQ-ETNW ex AM061

Revelation wrote:

Thus it will be the Germans that are delaying any relief for Airbus, and it's also (according to the article) the Germans who are the least likely to grant such relief.

"Muttis Kindergeburtstag mit Topfschlagen" will come to an end tonight.
Finale either cataclysmic or kumbaja. but definitely not created from love.

Temp CSU minister for transport is busy breaking some porcelain to the advantage of Bavaria
https://www.shz.de/deutschland-welt/sic ... 19616.html
while the Dob Rind is ambushing potential coalition partners.

I'd not expect much from Germany at the moment.

A400M gearbox fix slips into 2018

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-443375/

Slug71 wrote:

A400M gearbox fix slips into 2018

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-443375/

who is dragging their feet? AVIO ?

WIederling wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

A400M gearbox fix slips into 2018

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-443375/

who is dragging their feet? AVIO ?

The article makes it clear what the issue is.

It shows the downside of having a civilian certification on a military aircraft.

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

A400M gearbox fix slips into 2018

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-443375/

who is dragging their feet? AVIO ?

The article makes it clear what the issue is.

It shows the downside of having a civilian certification on a military aircraft.

The gearbox is AVIO. So they are instrumental in providing substance for certification.

There is just one civil cert authority to satisfy while there could be a buquet of militaries
with individual sets of ( incompatible ) requirements.

How to get away from that multi mouth no brain monster ..

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

who is dragging their feet? AVIO ?

The article makes it clear what the issue is.

It shows the downside of having a civilian certification on a military aircraft.

The gearbox is AVIO. So they are instrumental in providing substance for certification.

There is just one civil cert authority to satisfy while there could be a buquet of militaries
with individual sets of ( incompatible ) requirements.

How to get away from that multi mouth no brain monster ..

The joys of having a multinational project, especially a high tech one.

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 62 F-RBAL Armée de l´Air delivery 01dec17 SVQ-BIQ ex A4M062

KarelXWB wrote:

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 62 F-RBAL Armée de l´Air delivery 01dec17 SVQ-BIQ ex A4M062

Article on MSN62:

France welcomes first tanker-equipped A400M

It also tells us it can tank fighters, and as for helicopters:

Paris also is acquiring four Lockheed Martin C-130Js, including two tankers capable of refuelling its Airbus Helicopters H225Ms. Its first new-generation Hercules transport completed a first flight from Lockheed's Marietta facility in Georgia in late November.

Next up:

Airbus A400M -180 63 54+15 Luftwaffe delivery 07dec17 SVQ-ETNW ex 4M063

KarelXWB wrote:

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 62 F-RBAL Armée de l´Air delivery 01dec17 SVQ-BIQ ex A4M062

KarelXWB wrote:

Next up:

Airbus A400M -180 63 54+15 Luftwaffe delivery 07dec17 SVQ-ETNW ex 4M063

I trust you enough to be sure you didn't miss any delivery; I just can say I'm surprised to see this sequence.
Anyway, that makes 17 for this year, 3 short of the planned 20 you found at post #248.
Could it be first year AD&S delivers as many as promised ??

Grizzly410 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Next delivery:

Airbus A400M -180 62 F-RBAL Armée de l´Air delivery 01dec17 SVQ-BIQ ex A4M062

KarelXWB wrote:

Next up:

Airbus A400M -180 63 54+15 Luftwaffe delivery 07dec17 SVQ-ETNW ex 4M063

I trust you enough to be sure you didn't miss any delivery; I just can say I'm surprised to see this sequence.
Anyway, that makes 17 for this year, 3 short of the planned 20 you found at post #248.
Could it be first year AD&S delivers as many as promised ??

We are rooting for you!

Nice to see the tanking mods are now out the door.

A glimpse of MSN 76, Spain's 3rd A400M:


https://twitter.com/ja_almarza/status/9 ... 5869335552

And so the French said: go on, give us another one:

Airbus A400M -180 65 F-RBAM Armée de l´Air delivery 19dec17 SVQ-PUF ex A4M065

mxaxai wrote:

It does not surprise me that the SAAF preferred the simpler, smaller C160 in their regional conflict.

The C160 is actually bigger than the C130. It's cargo area is also longer, wider and higher.

They probably liked it because of that and its very good rough field capabilities. It has slightly more power per kg and a lot less weight on its equal sized wing. It has been designed for pure inter combat zone operations with rarely more than 100nm to fly. In its niche there probably never was a more effective aircraft and South Africa probably needed exactly that.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

It does not surprise me that the SAAF preferred the simpler, smaller C160 in their regional conflict.

The C160 is actually bigger than the C130. It's cargo area is also longer, wider and higher.

They probably liked it because of that and its very good rough field capabilities. It has slightly more power per kg and a lot less weight on its equal sized wing. It has been designed for pure inter combat zone operations with rarely more than 100nm to fly. In its niche there probably never was a more effective aircraft and South Africa probably needed exactly that.

Best regards
Thomas

Yes and most importantly was it's ability to kneel allowing faster loading and unloading resulting in quicker turnaround times. Dickie Lord has some good stories about them in his books.

MSN 70 has been delivered:

2nd #A400M for Spain delivered to @EjercitoAire this morning. 19 this year

https://twitter.com/AirbusDefence/statu ... 7390586881

http://www.infodefensa.com/es/2017/12/2 ... a400m.html

I don't speak spanish but it appears they are reducing production rate next year?

Being build in EU, having costs overruns and being notfromhere the A400M has always faced lots of critisism.

Looking at its specifications, performance, broad applications, competitive and market situation, I see additional orders coming in and the program turning into a big succes.

http://defense-update.com/20171222_a400 ... spain.html


https://i1.wp.com/defense-update.com/wp ... 8-1021.jpg

keesje wrote:

Being build in EU, having costs overruns and being notfromhere the A400M has always faced lots of critisism.

Looking at its specifications, performance, broad applications, competitive and market situation, I see additional orders coming in and the program turning into a big succes.

While there is no point rehashing your previous claims on export potential the facts on export of the A400M are that there has only been one export customer, Malaysia, who has received all four jets. The Indonesians haven't officially ordered yet but if they do that will comprise five aircraft only. Perhaps NZ may order three but they do not appear to be in a hurry to order. The other rumours around the Czech and Swiss involve using existing German A400 aircraft and not new builds.

Even if Airbus drop the rate to eleven a year the above potential orders comprise less than one year of production. Given the KC-390 is coming online and the Japanese are becoming more aggressive in the market with the C-2 the potential orders for A400M are either less or the potential profit from any A400M orders will be less due to competition. As already stated, the great features of the A400M likely only appeal to a small subset of future operators with others unlikely to pay the price premium of the A400M for capability they likely don't need.

The Japanese never exported anything. The old Herc & KC-390 are lighter, don't carry big heavy vehicles. No competitor usually works and the world is a big marketplace.

keesje wrote:

The Japanese never exported anything.

That should probably read "The Japanese haven't exported military equipment". They do have some experience in commercial export...

I agree though, buying a Japanese aircraft would be a bigger risk than buying the A400M but the C-2 is likely cheaper by a decent enough margin that the risk may be worth it. The Japanese onlyh need a couple of decent customers, and we know NZ and the UAE have been investigating them, to begin to make a decent dent in the market. Japan is a sleeping giant for arms exports and I expect their industry and exports will increase significantly over the next 10-15 years.

keesje wrote:

The old Herc & KC-390 are lighter, don't carry big heavy vehicles. No competitor usually works and the world is a big marketplace.

Again Keesje, no one is denying the capability of the A400M. What is up for debate is whether enough militaries actually require that heavy vehicle capability to pay the price required.

There are precious few countries in the world that can meet all of the bullet points for making the A400M make sense for moving large vehicles:

1) They need to be able to purchase enough of them for the number of vehicles moved to have any real tactical relevance. This number is likely 12 active plus a few more spares.
2) They need to actually have vehicles that large THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO MOVE in the first place. Many countries only have a handful of very large combat vehicles to begin with, and most of those will be dedicated to home defense. Most of those countries are small enough that having them road mobile on large flatbed trucks is enough to get them anywhere along the border within a few hours.
3) They need to have a defensive posture that would even require or allow them to deploy heavy vehicles on foreign soil to begin with.

Going through all of that, you're down to less than 12 countries/coalitions, the largest of which already have their own indigenous designs in production and many of which already have purchased units from the existing players in that market. While I won't be shocked to see a few ordered in small numbers here and there, it certainly won't be for more than very specific use cases and not for routine rapid air mobile deployment of large numbers of heavy vehicles. Once you take that into account, you are left that the only real advantage to the A400M is its internal volume for smaller items, which can be competed against by just purchasing a few more of the smaller transports in the market. It does have great rough field ability and there are some other nice to have design features, but given the number of airports that dot the globe, its hardly going to be a common need.

I'll say this again as I've said in other posts: The A400M is a fine plane for its intended purposes, its just going to have a very limited export volume because of its extreme capabilities and commensurate costs.

LightningZ71 wrote:

There are precious few countries in the world that can meet all of the bullet points for making the A400M make sense for moving large vehicles:

The NZ requirement which effectively rules out C-130 or smaller is the ability to transport NZLAV and the NH90. Which leaves NZ with the choice of C2 or A400.

Kiwirob wrote:

The NZ requirement which effectively rules out C-130 or smaller is the ability to transport NZLAV and the NH90. Which leaves NZ with the choice of C2 or A400.

Not quite. The NZ FAMC RFI stated the following requirements,

The scope of the project includes:

- replacement of the current fixed wing air mobility capability by no less than an equivalent level of capability matched to current and future needs.
- replacement of the five C-130H aircraft between 2021 and 2023. Phase in options for replacement capability are being developed for discussion and agreement with the Air Force.
- replacement of the two B757-200 combi aircraft between 2025 and 2026.
- the personnel, training, infrastructure, requirements management, concepts, doctrine, support, testing, evaluation and introduction into service of future capabilities.

https://www.defence.govt.nz/what-we-do/ ... apability/

So nothing specific about NH90 or NZLAV transport capability, especially in light of the current transport fleet not being able to transport that equipment, just a requirement for a capability no less than the current. That doesn't mean that being able to transport the NH90 is not a good thing and will be valued in the RFI but to me that doesn't rule out the C-130J. The KC-390 is capable of transporting the NZLAV so is also a potential viable option and apparently Embraer replied to the NZ RFI.

Frankly, NZ requirements to transport either LAV III or the NH90 around the pacific are covered by HMNZS Canterbury. Any longer ranged deployment can be covered by contract lift or strategic partners, as it already is today.

Countries that support international operations have new gen fighting vehicles, want to be able to transport serious relief equipment, be able to cross substantial distances quickly without refuelling, be able refuel jets, be certified for using civil airways, present a truly tactical capability to get to the action directly. Frankly I think there are many. Basicly the larger, reasonable developped countries. Some use C-17's but they are not really tacticle and way more expensive to operate.

https://youtu.be/URSit14R9OE

keesje wrote:

Countries that support international operations have new gen fighting vehicles, want to be able to transport serious relief equipment, be able to cross substantial distances quickly without refuelling, be able refuel jets, be certified for using civil airways, present a truly tactical capability to get to the action directly. Frankly I think there are many. Basicly the larger, reasonable developped countries. Some use C-17's but they are not really tacticle and way more expensive to operate.

All those unfilled requirements and yet A400M has such slow sales that Airbus is considering reducing the production rate.

Meanwhile the larger, reasonable, developed nation of Germany is buying six C-130J and the larger, reasonable, developed nation of France is buying four C-130J.

Go figure.

Revelation wrote:

All those unfilled requirements and yet A400M has such slow sales that Airbus is considering reducing the production rate.

Not considering, they are reducing it (20) in 2018 (15) and again in 2019 (11).

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile the larger, reasonable, developed nation of Germany is buying six C-130J and the larger, reasonable, developed nation of France is buying four C-130J.

Go figure.

Apples vs Oranges. Once the needs that the A400 offers are covered, they can fill others with specific a/cams. The fact that the A400 is great doesn’t mean it’s the best for everything.

keesje wrote:

Countries that support international operations have new gen fighting vehicles, want to be able to transport serious relief equipment, be able to cross substantial distances quickly without refuelling, be able refuel jets, be certified for using civil airways, present a truly tactical capability to get to the action directly. Frankly I think there are many.

Your assumption is wrong. There aren't many countries and the requirements you have listed, which looks like a nice list of A400M capabilities, isn't common for most militaries. Outside of UN operations, I can't think of ten countries that globally deploy troops on a regular basis outside of alliance organisations. If we look at NATO/ISAF, those transport needs are already met, as are any alliance operations conducted with the US, by the US extensive transport fleet. Additionally even the US contracts out to private providers including AN-124 operators.

Within UN operations, the vast majority of troops come from reasonably poor countries, are deployed regionally and the UN provides them with transport. Most UN vehicle movement is done by sea because the deployments are known with enough time to plan economic movement.

keesje wrote:

Basicly the larger, reasonable developped countries. Some use C-17's but they are not really tacticle and way more expensive to operate.

Keesje, France and Germany aren't landing AFVs forward using the A400M, even in Africa the threat is too high to deploy vehicles that way. They may fly them in to nearby airports but the most common transport method remains via sea. That way all the ammunition, special equipment, fuel, spares, support staff, engineering vehicles etc can be transported at the same time as the AFVs .

The" deploying a vehicle forward to an austere location with a A400M", or any current transport plane, is a myth and not a reality. Even in 1990, the US transported the vast majority of military equipment for GW1 by sea. During the cold war, there were no plans for the US to transport large fleets of AFV via aircraft, they used pre-positioned equipment and relied on sea transportation to move heavy equipment across the Atlantic, and that was a military with the largest and most capable air transport fleet in history.