The C130J program was saved by congress. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/congressional-pressure-saves-c130j-program-0514/

Planeflyer wrote:

A real question; could The A400 been profitable if EU countries met their forecast?

No, as the engine problems alone delayed it too much. In the end it is something Airbus has hopefully learned. If you enter a commercial contract, the whole program needs to be managed in a commercial way, which means work shares are given to the best bidder and not based on the need to full fill certain quotas for certain countries.

seahawk wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

A real question; could The A400 been profitable if EU countries met their forecast?

No, as the engine problems alone delayed it too much. In the end it is something Airbus has hopefully learned. If you enter a commercial contract, the whole program needs to be managed in a commercial way, which means work shares are given to the best bidder and not based on the need to full fill certain quotas for certain countries.

baloney.

If you enter the political project domain ( and in an environment of a market participant that does not like competition )
defend against political sabotage. Most of the engine delays imho show an element of sabotaqe. ( same for the long time hidden by the Spanish project lead overweight issue.)

Few projects have seen so intense "countermeasures" brought up from "foreign but interested parties".

WIederling wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

A real question; could The A400 been profitable if EU countries met their forecast?

No, as the engine problems alone delayed it too much. In the end it is something Airbus has hopefully learned. If you enter a commercial contract, the whole program needs to be managed in a commercial way, which means work shares are given to the best bidder and not based on the need to full fill certain quotas for certain countries.

baloney.

If you enter the political project domain ( and in an environment of a market participant that does not like competition )
defend against political sabotage. Most of the engine delays imho show an element of sabotaqe. ( same for the long time hidden by the Spanish project lead overweight issue.)

Few projects have seen so intense "countermeasures" brought up from "foreign but interested parties".

Aaaah, the sabotage and conspiracy theories are being raised again

Who do you think are the guilty parties ? The U.S.A. in general? Lockheed Martin ? Boeing ? Northrop Grumman ? Dassault ? Pratt & Whitney ? Pratt & Whitney Canada ? G.E. ? Rolls Royce ? Russia ? China ? Or is it an inside job ?


Why is it so hard to accept that the development of the program has just been poorly executed and it's a drain on Airbus and all the project partners ? The aircraft will most likely in the end be in service for 40 years, do an excellent job for it's customers, but never make money for Airbus...shit happens.

Looks like posters with time on their hands and nothing to add to years of similar posting will still be splitting hairs 40 years from now...

jupiter2 wrote:

Aaaah, the sabotage and conspiracy theories are being raised again

That is a first approximation obviousness that comes with
"a nation invariably proud and boasting that they have stuck it
to some other party in an underhanded way or other."

boasting obviously limited to how it fits the current allegiances.

WIederling wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Aaaah, the sabotage and conspiracy theories are being raised again

That is a first approximation obviousness that comes with
"a nation invariably proud and boasting that they have stuck it
to some other party in an underhanded way or other."

boasting obviously limited to how it fits the current allegiances.

You continually come up with conspiracy theories, without any facts to back them up.

I have no interest in whether the program succeeds or fails, my interest is as an aviation enthusiast, simple as that. If I see one I'll try and get a photo of it, that's about the extent of it. Australia has made up its mind for our airforce and went with the C-130J and the C-17, with the 330 Multirole tankers when needed, so Australia has no need for them.


So if you have some basis of facts to back up your sabotage conspiracy, put them forward. Better still, take them to the police, federal authorities in your home country, I'm sure they would love to prove that some evil subvert, has undermined the next great tactical airlifter of the modern age

Air-to-air refueling capability well on its way: http://www.janes.com/article/81356/a400 ... refuelling

vr773 wrote:

Air-to-air refueling capability well on its way: http://www.janes.com/article/81356/a400 ... refuelling

Good news. I haven't seen any recent news on RW refueling, any update on that?

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

Air-to-air refueling capability well on its way: http://www.janes.com/article/81356/a400 ... refuelling

Good news. I haven't seen any recent news on RW refueling, any update on that?

I suppose this would clear the F/A-18 in general? Or are there differences in the air-refueling system of the Spanish fighters?

With the Rafale also done, Eurofighter next? Or has it too already been done?

The article I shared on previous page said that Cobham is working on an updated pod.

"A future upgraded version of the underwing nacelle is expected to allow for refuelling of helicopters."

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... ls-rafale/

Mirage 2000 is scheduled for next year too.

Revelation wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Noray wrote:

In the C-130J program -- it was run on a commercial basis before the A400M --, Lockheed and the Air Force surely were cleverer when they agreed to keep financial experts in the dark about the program's costs. Congress and Lockheed created a need for the C-130J, It was a commercial procurement failure, the performance was failing as well (headlines from the linked report). But it was American, so no problem.

Noray, you do realise the difference between the two programs don’t you?

The C-130J was developed, and sold, by LM commercially. The launch customer for the aircraft was the UK, which ordered more than two years previous to the US, while Australia ordered one year before the US and was the first to receive the -30 variant. So two international orders before the US even signed on.

While I believe some of the criticism of the IG report was justified some clearly wasn’t. If we consider the contractual delivery issues, as the Air Force noted they had no issue asking and LM fixing defects. The USAF also didn’t need to provide additional funding. Noting as well that the US Congress funded 30 additional aircraft above what the USAF asked for. In that context what else could the USAF do other than accept early build aircraft and push LM for fixes, which they did, and wait for USAF OT&E to identify if the fixes had been implemented.

Additionally, no one is claiming the C-130J entered into service with no issues. The RAAF clearly had troubles in 2001 with their OT&E as evidenced in a report by the ANAO,
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... 002_30.pdf

The C-130J took a number of years to reach sufficient maturity.

Contrast that to A400M development, where in 2007 Airbus Executives testified to British Parliamentarians as found in the following link. What Airbus executives said in response to questions, certainly with the assistance of hindsight and what we know today of the struggles the program had at that time, is borderline criminal. The Airbus testimony starts at EV28.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 62/462.pdf

IMHO, it was a flawed post.

The whole premise that A400M can't use the "all military programs have overruns" card because Airbus promised to develop it on commercial terms but failed to do so isn't negated by finding a second program that actually was developed on a commercial basis. The C130J example shows how LM did not ask for more money from the customer, quite unlike A400M. Yes, Airbus took the bulk of the financial hit, but it had a signed agreement to take 100% of the hit and it did not live up to that agreement.

If we want to play the conspiracy theory game, it's interesting how the A400M had "poison pill" provisions forcing Airbus to eat the overruns, but they claimed they could not afford to live up to the contract and then the "too big to fail" approach was used to force more money out of the taxpayers hands and into Airbus's. Along with actually getting more money from the taxpayers, they walked away from the kinds of penalties that they paid to A380 customers and that they should have paid to the taxpayers for their failure to execute the A400M program as promised. So how did a contract get constructed so the poison pill was so poisonous that it could never be put to use? Even after that, Airbus is now negotiating relaxation in functionality and delivery schedule with no compensation (apparently) being given to the customers. How is that daylight robbery happening?

So, when you try to explain why it seems that you utterly despise the A400M (this is what the last postings were about), in the end it all boils down to economics? Seems a bit unfair to me to judge a complex project on that aspect alone. Especially if you know that this was a political project, intended to strengthen European independence and defence industry.

Above all, you ignore that the commercial approach was not just Airbus's idea, but a political requirement. In the 1990s, it was the latest attempt in trying to avoid the huge cost overruns previous projects had run into.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ayer-3751/

The FLA versus C-130J debate was to lead indirectly to then UK Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind, laying out the conditions under which the UK would rejoin the programme. Central to Rifkind's demands was that the FLA programme be placed under the auspices of Airbus Industrie, and that the project be run along commercial lines, to drive down costs.

It didn't work as intended with the C-130J, which was just a modernization of an existing airframe. The concept failed even more with A400M, which was a completely new design with new engines, created by a company that hardly had any experience in that specific field. But in the end, the politicians' idea to drive down costs for the public didn't fail completely, since Airbus has to carry the majority of the cost overruns.

Airbus wouldn't have received additional funds if the politicians didn't know that their meddling contributed to the cost overruns and delays.

We can agree that the commercial approach was somehow flawed, but then we still don't know anything about the aircraft itself, and that's no credible base for constant bashing of the aircraft.

Given now the known prices of existing military transport planes, their capibilities, and knowing how they are used and how often what are the particular niches that the A400 excels over other transports? And what would the sales people for others reply?

The main "niche" is not a niche, but it's a general purpose military transport more performant than the C-130. It carries larger, heavier and better protected vehicles, it flies faster and higher and has longer range. It's much better at carrying X tons of cargo from point A to point B within a given timeframe. In addition, it also delivers more cargo into small airfields than smaller aircraft. Under certain circumstances, one A400M replaces not only two C-130s, but two differently sized types of aircraft that would be required otherwise. I should say it replaces three types of aircraft and more since it's also an aerial refueller and a MedEvac aircraft and a long range SAR aircraft (interesting for NZ).

On the downside some of the capabilities are still under development or won't develop as intendended, I guess we'll hear more about that during the coming Farnborough Airshow. And of course, if you can afford to operate four different aircraft for four different purposes, these can be better optimized for their individual purpose.

I think that the planned mix of transport aircraft in the RAF makes sense, where the A400M is the main backbone, but there also is a number of smaller and larger Aircraft for specific purposes.

I’m expecting this export to be Indonesia but is there anyone else that is a potential buyer this year?

Airbus Expects to Close First A400M Export Sale This Year

The president of Airbus Spain, Fernando Alonso, said today that six firm offers have been submitted to relaunch the sales of the A400M military transport aircraft, of which two are being negotiated and one may be concluded this year with an export contract.

Alonso, during a breakfast of Executive Forum, said that despite the problems that have arisen with this plane, mainly due to persistent difficulties which have led to a slowing down of deliveries and, therefore, lower production rates, is an "excellent aircraft "that" will have great commercial success."

He added that the problem of the A400M is that it was born "with unsustainable specifications," as the sum of the needs of different European armies made these specifications "incoherent." To date, Airbus has not yet sold any A400Ms for export, beyond the 174 aircraft ordered by the partner countries.

Alonso pointed out that it has been necessary to "unravel" this mess, and blamed the problem not only on the countries, but on the industry that was not able to be sufficiently critical of these mounting issues.

"We have managed to stabilize it from the industrial point of view," said the head of Airbus in Spain, who said that although there are "three or four things to finish," on the plane "almost everything works."

In the last two years, Airbus delivered 18 and 19 A400Ms, but this year the number of these aircraft of this model assembled in Seville will fall to 15 as previously planned, according to Alonso.

He considered that the program has now stabilized and that customers are happier, so "it is time to sell" to new customers. Six firm offers have been submitted to foreign countries, two of which are being negotiated and one of which could well be concluded this year. .

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -year.html

I still think The SAAF is a good possibility. Might not be this year though. But they should be getting C235s / C295s this year. Maybe they can strike a good split package deal with A400Ms.

Slug71 wrote:

I still think The SAAF is a good possibility. Might not be this year though. But they should be getting C235s / C295s this year. Maybe they can strike a good split package deal with A400Ms.

I just don’t see the funds available for that type of purchase by the SAAF given they already have problems maintaining and operating the aircraft they have today. This report from a couple of years ago http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?o ... sa-defence highlights the issues while the latest defence budget cuts the SAAF another 10.2% of funding from the previous financial year. http://www.janes.com/article/78216/sout ... nce-budget

The budget is expected to increase in 19/20 and 20/21 but an A400M acquisition would be a significant expenditure when the SADF has been and could continue to use commercial contractors for regional air transport requirements.

I don't have a subscription to Aviation week, but it appears Malaysia just qualified 3 fighters for refueling. One seems to be the Hawk.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/mal ... -refueling

Seems like there's been a push to get the in-flight-refueling in service.

Looks like the Germans are finally coming to grips with their A400Ms.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1KL1MZ

Interesting last paragraph,

Zimmer said the new capability would be ready for use beginning Aug. 1, a third big achievement for the A400M after the advent this year of its ability to refuel other aircraft, and the first transports of troops and cargo to Afghanistan in recent days.

The A400M is a tactical aircraft, but a very big & fast one and a tanker too. It perfectly fits new operational requirements of the European Airforces and more, if the various programs, scenarios and RFI's are to be believed. Some folks are speaking double tongued though, because it's a g.d d.mn fr'n Airbus. That's good for some editorial entertainment

This article is one of many that has come out in the Vietnamese Press during and after the visit of the A400M, with associated Rafale, while on its way to Australia from Pitch Black 18. Some of the reports have indicated the Vietnamese are considering the aircraft.

A400M long-range military transport aircraft has been launched by the French military and invited some special guests to fly in Hanoi, Hai Phong, 27/8.

In the Asia-Pacific region, PEGASE operates a flight of the A400M over Hanoi and several other locations in the Asia-Pacific region. north, afternoon 27/8. Called a few localities because in one hour flight, the A400M has "visited" the sky provinces from Hai Duong, Hai Phong, Quang Ninh, Vinh Phuc, Phu Tho or Thai Nguyen.

The flight was attended by only three Vietnamese journalists and more than 20 other visitors from the French and EU missions and soldiers working in the Air Defense Corps. Reporter Zing.vn was fortunate to be invited to experience more than an hour in the air with this long-range military transport aircraft. Luckily, the weather at the airport is very hot, but when it comes to air, blue sky and white clouds, the group of guests is watching from the cockpit cabin is quite interesting.

The program took place after the French team completed the Pitch Black 2018 exercise in Australia. They mobilized 100 officers and technical personnel for the operation, led by General Patrick Charaix. A French squadron of Rafale, C-135 and A310 aircraft landed at Noi Bai International Airport on 26 August afternoon to prepare for their three-day event in Hanoi.

...

https://news.zing.vn/may-bay-quan-su-ph ... 72254.html

In July, a Malaysian A400M accompanied several F-18s and refueled them in midair on their way from Malaysia to exercise Pitch Black 2018 in Darwin, Australia.

https://twitter.com/ADFinMalaysia/statu ... 4384451584
https://twitter.com/airforcenextgen/sta ... 4232617984

Currently, A400Ms form Malaysia and the UK are taking part in the disaster relief operations following the earthquake and tsunami in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Initially, the local authorities didn't allow the A400Ms to land on the damaged and shortened runway of Palu airport in Sulawesi. They flew to Balikpapan, Borneo instead, where a logistics hub has been installed. C-130s then carried the cargo to Palu.

Damaged Palu runway thwarts aid-laden RMAF aircraft

But by now, the Malaysians seem to have convinced the Indonesian authorities that they are able to operate the A400M at Palu airport. On October 7, an A400M of the Malaysian Airforce that transported a 17 ton tank truck landed in Palu.

http://www.bernama.com/bm/news.php?id=1650852 (Malaysian, with video; Google translate)

On October 9, a Malaysian A400M flew a 22 ton excavator to the damaged airport of Palu, Sulawesi. According to the Malaysian Air Force (TUDM), it was the heaviest piece of equipment that has been transported in an A400M until now. (Not sure if this refers to the global A400M fleet or just to the A400Ms of TUDM.)

http://www.bernama.com/bm/news.php?id=1651720 (Google translate)
http://jakarta.tribunnews.com/2018/10/0 ... na-di-palu (Google translate)

Videos of Malaysian A400Ms transporting vehicles and other cargo to Palu:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ly1zzPK8dw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pmscPBI4s
https://twitter.com/UMonline/status/1049502873648738306

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

It seems market requirements (vehicle dimensions) are going up making current smaller platforms obsolete. Probably what Airbus is hoping for.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/

keesje wrote:

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

It seems market requirements (vehicle dimensions) are going up making current smaller platforms obsolete. Probably what Airbus is hoping for.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/

Sorry, I am a huge fan of the A400M. And I can barely stand the negativism about it - in this thread or the real world. But Germany acquiring the Herc alongside the A400M is real world contrast of making smaller platforms obsolete.

I never understood anyway, for civilian aircraft or military, why people can only argue in black or white, "killer this, killer that" aircraft categories.

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

You still couldn’t rule out New Zealand going ahead wil A400Ms for their C-130H replacement. Time for a decision on this is getting closer.

As previously discussed by many, it seems the four options available to replace the C-130H is the C-130J, KC-390, C2 and the A400M.

In my opinion, given NZ’s responsibilities around supporting their neighbors in the Pacific, the ability to get humanitarian aid in a natural disaster or some similar scenario is a key factor for them.

The ability to land on relatively (but not exclusively) short runways (rough runways at that) is a key factor.

But I think it’s important to them to have the ability to drop an NH90 into an area to assist. It would seem to be a primary tasking for them surely. An NH90 will only fit in the C2 or the A400M.

Furthermore, the NZ govt just announced a significant cash surplus this week, maybe with some extra cash in the kitty they may go like for like replacement of the 5 x C-130H’s with the A400......?

JJT wrote:

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

You still couldn’t rule out New Zealand going ahead wil A400Ms for their C-130H replacement. Time for a decision on this is getting closer.

As previously discussed by many, it seems the four options available to replace the C-130H is the C-130J, KC-390, C2 and the A400M.

In my opinion, given NZ’s responsibilities around supporting their neighbors in the Pacific, the ability to get humanitarian aid in a natural disaster or some similar scenario is a key factor for them.

The ability to land on relatively (but not exclusively) short runways (rough runways at that) is a key factor.

But I think it’s important to them to have the ability to drop an NH90 into an area to assist. It would seem to be a primary tasking for them surely. An NH90 will only fit in the C2 or the A400M.

Furthermore, the NZ govt just announced a significant cash surplus this week, maybe with some extra cash in the kitty they may go like for like replacement of the 5 x C-130H’s with the A400......?

If they are that keen to get an NH90 somewhere quick, they'll just give Canberra a call and ask for a C-17 for the mission. Chances would be that if it was that important, Australia would most likely be involved anyway.

jupiter2 wrote:

JJT wrote:

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

You still couldn’t rule out New Zealand going ahead wil A400Ms for their C-130H replacement. Time for a decision on this is getting closer.

As previously discussed by many, it seems the four options available to replace the C-130H is the C-130J, KC-390, C2 and the A400M.

In my opinion, given NZ’s responsibilities around supporting their neighbors in the Pacific, the ability to get humanitarian aid in a natural disaster or some similar scenario is a key factor for them.

The ability to land on relatively (but not exclusively) short runways (rough runways at that) is a key factor.

But I think it’s important to them to have the ability to drop an NH90 into an area to assist. It would seem to be a primary tasking for them surely. An NH90 will only fit in the C2 or the A400M.

Furthermore, the NZ govt just announced a significant cash surplus this week, maybe with some extra cash in the kitty they may go like for like replacement of the 5 x C-130H’s with the A400......?

If they are that keen to get an NH90 somewhere quick, they'll just give Canberra a call and ask for a C-17 for the mission. Chances would be that if it was that important, Australia would most likely be involved anyway.

Yeah....I hear ya but NZ will not want to be reliant on Aussie and will (should) want to be seen to be able to pull their weight in the region. C17 ain’t going to be able to land on many strips in the Pacific Islands either (the bigger runways may be damaged too...)

jupiter2 wrote:

If they are that keen to get an NH90 somewhere quick, they'll just give Canberra a call and ask for a C-17 for the mission. Chances would be that if it was that important, Australia would most likely be involved anyway.

KC-390 would hands down be the ideal solution for New Zealand and most small countries that operate old C-130's. It is a jack of all trades master of none airlifter that is the cheapest to operate.

New Zealands low budget would be better spent on an airlifter that provides the highest value for money. They have typically purchased used aircraft so cost would be a priority.

The A400M has the best landing performance for its size but as a result it is extremely over priced. Unless you really need that crazy takeoff performance you can save big bucks by not buying the A400M. The C-2 for instance while being similar in size requires runways nearly twice as long as the A400M. The C-2's low production run makes it relatively expensive.

This is why the A400M will struggle to find new buyers. Countries that can afford this extreme performance already have A400M on order or have the C-130J C-17 combo.

The A400M will be out of production before the C-17 replacement cycle starts.

RJMAZ wrote:

New Zealands low budget would be better spent on an airlifter that provides the highest value for money. They have typically purchased used aircraft so cost would be a priority.

What a load of cow poo, we don’t typically purchase used. Of recent purchases the T6 Texan new, P8 new, NH90 new, 109LUH new, the 10 Aussie Seasprites were the only recent used purchase, these were barely used by Australia, the older Kiwi Sprites were purchased new. The C130’s were new as were 5 of the 6 P3’s. The 757’s were used.

keesje wrote:

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

It seems market requirements (vehicle dimensions) are going up making current smaller platforms obsolete. Probably what Airbus is hoping for.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/

Landing an IFV in an combat zone on soft ground and knowing that the Marder replacement would be in access of 30ton probably drove quite a bit of what the A400M looks like today, more peacekeeping and out-of-Europe missions with more demand for range drove most of the rest. That niche is small, so being the only aircraft to fill it is about as useful for the A400M as it is for the A380 and was for the 764.

best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

New Zealands low budget would be better spent on an airlifter that provides the highest value for money. They have typically purchased used aircraft so cost would be a priority.

What a load of cow poo, we don’t typically purchase used. Of recent purchases the T6 Texan new, P8 new, NH90 new, 109LUH new, the 10 Aussie Seasprites were the only recent used purchase, these were barely used by Australia, the older Kiwi Sprites were purchased new. The C130’s were new as were 5 of the 6 P3’s. The 757’s were used.

Good point Kiwirob. Well clarified.

JJT wrote:

You still couldn’t rule out New Zealand going ahead wil A400Ms for their C-130H replacement. Time for a decision on this is getting closer.

As previously discussed by many, it seems the four options available to replace the C-130H is the C-130J, KC-390, C2 and the A400M.

In my opinion, given NZ’s responsibilities around supporting their neighbors in the Pacific, the ability to get humanitarian aid in a natural disaster or some similar scenario is a key factor for them.

The ability to land on relatively (but not exclusively) short runways (rough runways at that) is a key factor.

But I think it’s important to them to have the ability to drop an NH90 into an area to assist. It would seem to be a primary tasking for them surely. An NH90 will only fit in the C2 or the A400M.

Furthermore, the NZ govt just announced a significant cash surplus this week, maybe with some extra cash in the kitty they may go like for like replacement of the 5 x C-130H’s with the A400......?

I have commented on the NZ replacement before but it is really important to again note the intent that NZ has for their future operations. They have built their doctrine around a Joint Amphibious Concept with the transport and sustainment of NZDF forces conducted primarily by sea. The NZDF, and NZ Government, see the HMNZS Canterbury as the central asset in this role. From the NZ 2016 Defence Capability Plan

Sealift capabilities enable land operations, particularly in the South Pacific, through the deployment of troops and stores from the sea to land, supported by command and control elements and embarked helicopters. Sealift allows the Defence Force to respond from the sea to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief situations across our region. HMNZS Canterbury, the Navy multi-role vessel, is able to deploy troops, vehicles, supplies, and containerised storage across our region. Canterbury can also transport all of the Air Force’s types of helicopter to distant locations.

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/pu ... n-2016.pdf

In the NZDF 2016 capability plan they list the following Air Domain Capabilities required,

A tactical airlift capability that supports independent operations, search and rescue tasks, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and coalition operations.

For future Air Mobility they have listed the cost as more than One Billion (likely including sustainment costs for a defined period) while the indicative acquisition will go out to 2026.

So just to be clear, the NZDF indicate that sea based assets are the primary means for deploying, and more importantly supporting, rotary wing assets around the South Pacific. That doesn't mean that they will never transport a RW aircraft via air, and a A400M acquisition would provide that capability for them, but it doesn't appear to be a primary requirement for the air mobility upgrade.

The A400M's best chance for NZ is likely used German airframes at a heavily discounted price but we know there are sensitivities around the sale of those frames while Airbus continues to market new builds.

jupiter2 wrote:

If they are that keen to get an NH90 somewhere quick, they'll just give Canberra a call and ask for a C-17 for the mission. Chances would be that if it was that important, Australia would most likely be involved anyway.

I think that is unlikely. In 2016 when NZ and Australia helped out post the Fiji cyclone the ADF transported several MRH-90s via the C-17 and others via sea based assets while the NZDF used the Canterbury to transport and operate NZ NH-90s. In 2015 to support Vanuatu the ADF primarily operated from Tobruk with their RW assets while NZ operated RW aircraft from Canterbury.

JJT wrote:

Yeah....I hear ya but NZ will not want to be reliant on Aussie and will (should) want to be seen to be able to pull their weight in the region. C17 ain’t going to be able to land on many strips in the Pacific Islands either (the bigger runways may be damaged too...)

An interesting issue. The A400M has a wingspan only 9 feet longer than the C-130 but I can see why the RAAF acquired the C-27J, with its wingspan only 97 feet it provides a much better fit for small regional strips in PNG and elsewhere (while obviously having commonality with the C-130). The KC-390 also benefits from a small wingspan at 111 feet.

Ozair wrote:

JJT wrote:

You still couldn’t rule out New Zealand going ahead wil A400Ms for their C-130H replacement. Time for a decision on this is getting closer.

As previously discussed by many, it seems the four options available to replace the C-130H is the C-130J, KC-390, C2 and the A400M.

In my opinion, given NZ’s responsibilities around supporting their neighbors in the Pacific, the ability to get humanitarian aid in a natural disaster or some similar scenario is a key factor for them.

The ability to land on relatively (but not exclusively) short runways (rough runways at that) is a key factor.

But I think it’s important to them to have the ability to drop an NH90 into an area to assist. It would seem to be a primary tasking for them surely. An NH90 will only fit in the C2 or the A400M.

Furthermore, the NZ govt just announced a significant cash surplus this week, maybe with some extra cash in the kitty they may go like for like replacement of the 5 x C-130H’s with the A400......?

I have commented on the NZ replacement before but it is really important to again note the intent that NZ has for their future operations. They have built their doctrine around a Joint Amphibious Concept with the transport and sustainment of NZDF forces conducted primarily by sea. The NZDF, and NZ Government, see the HMNZS Canterbury as the central asset in this role. From the NZ 2016 Defence Capability Plan

Sealift capabilities enable land operations, particularly in the South Pacific, through the deployment of troops and stores from the sea to land, supported by command and control elements and embarked helicopters. Sealift allows the Defence Force to respond from the sea to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief situations across our region. HMNZS Canterbury, the Navy multi-role vessel, is able to deploy troops, vehicles, supplies, and containerised storage across our region. Canterbury can also transport all of the Air Force’s types of helicopter to distant locations.

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/pu ... n-2016.pdf

In the NZDF 2016 capability plan they list the following Air Domain Capabilities required,

A tactical airlift capability that supports independent operations, search and rescue tasks, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and coalition operations.

For future Air Mobility they have listed the cost as more than One Billion (likely including sustainment costs for a defined period) while the indicative acquisition will go out to 2026.

So just to be clear, the NZDF indicate that sea based assets are the primary means for deploying, and more importantly supporting, rotary wing assets around the South Pacific.


That doesn't mean that they will never transport a RW aircraft via air, and a A400M acquisition would provide that capability for them, but it doesn't appear to be a primary requirement for the air mobility upgrade.


The A400M's best chance for NZ is likely used German airframes at a heavily discounted price but we know there are sensitivities around the sale of those frames while Airbus continues to market new builds.

jupiter2 wrote:

If they are that keen to get an NH90 somewhere quick, they'll just give Canberra a call and ask for a C-17 for the mission. Chances would be that if it was that important, Australia would most likely be involved anyway.

I think that is unlikely. In 2016 when NZ and Australia helped out post the Fiji cyclone the ADF transported several MRH-90s via the C-17 and others via sea based assets while the NZDF used the Canterbury to transport and operate NZ NH-90s. In 2015 to support Vanuatu the ADF primarily operated from Tobruk with their RW assets while NZ operated RW aircraft from Canterbury.

JJT wrote:

Yeah....I hear ya but NZ will not want to be reliant on Aussie and will (should) want to be seen to be able to pull their weight in the region. C17 ain’t going to be able to land on many strips in the Pacific Islands either (the bigger runways may be damaged too...)

An interesting issue. The A400M has a wingspan only 9 feet longer than the C-130 but I can see why the RAAF acquired the C-27J, with its wingspan only 97 feet it provides a much better fit for small regional strips in PNG and elsewhere (while obviously having commonality with the C-130). The KC-390 also benefits from a small wingspan at 111 feet.

Roger that Ozair - agreed, it does pay to always go back and look at the intent and doctrine.

Roger- rightly or wrongly ....as a primary means of deployment , that will be sloooooooow. For sustainment and support, that makes sense......and maybe they are happy with that. For humanitarian aid and disaster relief I would have thought getting a couple of helo airframes into the AO quickly would be a primary objective. If the Canterbury is beetling around in the Tasman Sea when the balloon goes up, she'll take a few days before she can make her way up into some regions of the Pacific to respond.

I just seem to recall somewhere that transporting an NH-90 was a capability they wanted to have with the new acquisitions. Even if not a primary requirement (but a requirement nonetheless), it will half the options immediately (I.e. A400M vs C2).

I think Airbus will be (should be...!) looking to do whatever it can to get another countries Air Force flying the flag for them, so to speak. Just as Boeing / Embraer et al will be trying to do with their products.

I can only see NZ acquiring one type of airframe simply because of the costs associated with running two different types (would be great to see some sort of combination of A400M/C-27J or KC-390/C295 or insert your favourite combo - just don't see that happening at all).

Thanks for your thoughts and points Ozair - good info mate.

Revelation wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

keesje wrote:

It seems market requirements (vehicle dimensions) are going up making current smaller platforms obsolete. Probably what Airbus is hoping for.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/

Sorry, I am a huge fan of the A400M. And I can barely stand the negativism about it - in this thread or the real world. But Germany acquiring the Herc alongside the A400M is real world contrast of making smaller platforms obsolete.

I never understood anyway, for civilian aircraft or military, why people can only argue in black or white, "killer this, killer that" aircraft categories.

Since we're talking about things we don't understand, I don't understand why larger/heavier military vehicles will result in Airbus being happy. IMHO by the time the US Army makes its mind up about future combat vehicles and gets funding to develop them, we very well could see LM or Boeing or NG get happy because they'll use that new requirement to drive funding for up-rated air transports. This will be a big enough requirement to engage the primaries, as opposed to replacing USAF helos used to visit missle silos in North Dakota. And if the primaries get engaged all kinds of international arm twisting politics will erupt that probably won't make Airbus happy. The end result will be that there will be a new competitor with a large launch order on the international scene.

Let me try to explain; if the requirements go up & you're the only deal out there, that helps.

We could very well see a new competitor, cooperations like the Boeing/Saab T-X, the new UH1N replacements or Boeing KC390.

Maybe NG or LM will come up with a new C-43 like offering.

Revelation wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

keesje wrote:

It seems market requirements (vehicle dimensions) are going up making current smaller platforms obsolete. Probably what Airbus is hoping for.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/

Sorry, I am a huge fan of the A400M. And I can barely stand the negativism about it - in this thread or the real world. But Germany acquiring the Herc alongside the A400M is real world contrast of making smaller platforms obsolete.

I never understood anyway, for civilian aircraft or military, why people can only argue in black or white, "killer this, killer that" aircraft categories.

Since we're talking about things we don't understand, I don't understand why larger/heavier military vehicles will result in Airbus being happy. IMHO by the time the US Army makes its mind up about future combat vehicles and gets funding to develop them, we very well could see LM or Boeing or NG get happy because they'll use that new requirement to drive funding for up-rated air transports. This will be a big enough requirement to engage the primaries, as opposed to replacing USAF helos used to visit missle silos in North Dakota. And if the primaries get engaged all kinds of international arm twisting politics will erupt that probably won't make Airbus happy. The end result will be that there will be a new competitor with a large launch order on the international scene.

Also quite possible.

Ozair wrote:

The A400M's best chance for NZ is likely used German airframes at a heavily discounted price but we know there are sensitivities around the sale of those frames while Airbus continues to market new builds.

What makes you think that there are any used German A400Ms for sale?

GRIVely wrote:

With these positive developments in additional capabilities being added has there been any renewed procurement interest?

According to the answer of the German government to a parliamentary question, several nations showed interest in aquiring A400Ms (from Airbus, not from Germany) as of July 2018: Indonesia (3), Saudi Arabia (14), Peru (3), New Zealand (2).
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/036/1903609.pdf

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Let me try to explain; if the requirements go up & you're the only deal out there, that helps.

Let me try to explain, the US Army has a terrible history of developing new weapon systems, most programs collapse long before deployment.

So if you read on a web site that the Army has finally decided what they want to do, it means very little because they are a long way from deployment.

And if you think they'll get funding from Congress for the new vehicles along with funding for hundreds of examples of a foreign air transporter of a new class that costs what A400M costs, I think you're wrong.

It's a totally different situation than buying a few dozen helos to visit missile silos in North Dakota.

If the new vehicle requires a new class of air transport I'm sure the US primaries will be all over it, and the most likely outcome would be a new competitor for Airbus, not a new order.

The army has sucked at developing new vehicles mostly because defining the exact threat is difficult. First they wanted everything to be high air portable but then we want zero casualties from IED’s which don’t really work together. Then a few years later someone wants to pop IFV’s with autocannons on strykers.

Anyway, there does seem to finally be some clarity on the way forward. The contracts actually being. Sent out for vehicles are for heavier ones. The M109a7 will be 78,000 pounds before a planned barrel extension and auto loader and has built in capacity to do 110,000 pounds. That means nothing important or relevant is getting moved via air really, at least not in appreciable numbers.

The A400m may be relevant if all you want to move is an IFV (and maybe not they are getting heavier too). But it won’t move a tank. It won’t move a self propelled artillery piece that is surviveable on a contested battlefield. So you can’t move a heavy brigade with a400m. You can maybe move a Stryker style brigade if people care deeply about that which I don’t think they do as much anymore.

Again the A400m fits a very odd niche for the US in particular. It isn’t worth the many billions of dollars that would be needed to change over. Yes maybe it can move a more capable Styker type vehicle into combat. But that formation is still going to get its clock cleaned by any true heavy formation so what exactly is the point? If I need anti-tank and anti-IFV capability then I am need my own artillery and heavy units as well.

What capability exactly do I pickup with the extra size and weight an A400m can move? I am still moving a light force. It is what it is. If you want better mobility spend the billions for A400m on prepositioned heavy equipment and ships to move more of it.

bigjku wrote:

The A400m may be relevant if all you want to move is an IFV (and maybe not they are getting heavier too). But it won’t move a tank. It won’t move a self propelled artillery piece that is surviveable on a contested battlefield.

Yup. It is not a tool for campaigns of any sort, it us useful to give air mobile troops some significant firepower with modern protection when air superiority can only be established at times, like in a real war.
France (ERC 90) and Germany (Wiesel) loved giving air mobile troops more than what they can carry, some umpf and protection for a long time and continue to do so. I don't see many other countries do so aside of Russia to some degree.

For those that want simply more than a C130 or KC390, but don't need an C17, it is simply to expensive.

Best regards
Thomas

Am I missing something, the last order I found was Malaysia back in 2005 for 4, all delivered. There are 174 orders currently with many countries appearing to have deferred.

On paper it may be a great plane, but where are the orders.

If there is a prospect with the USAF, wouldn't LM be on point getting the skids greased for a RFP.

Meanwhile the C-130J is still getting orders.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Am I missing something, the last order I found was Malaysia back in 2005 for 4, all delivered. There are 174 orders currently with many countries appearing to have deferred.

On paper it may be a great plane, but where are the orders.

If there is a prospect with the USAF, wouldn't LM be on point getting the skids greased for a RFP.

Meanwhile the C-130J is still getting orders.

That's a moot point. 174 A400Ms is still 5 x or 6 x the number of KC-390s on order so far.

The initial A400M order was a minimum number specified by Airbus according to their expectations of profitability. At any lower quantity, the project would have been cancelled. So it started with an order that was probably bigger than the actual needs, and for a long time, all attempts to procure alternative aircraft more capable in the strategic or tactical roles were suppressed in France and Germany in order not to endanger the A400M project. Now that the A400M is flying, the French start to discuss their lack of real strategic transport capacities, the Germans start to discuss their dependence on Russian and Ukrainian Antonovs, and both procure a limited number of C-130s, a number that is still dwarfed by the number of A400Ms that are being procured.

Noray wrote:

What makes you think that there are any used German A400Ms for sale?

German military to use 13 A400M aircraft after failing to find buyers

Germany initially planned to buy 60 A400M aircraft, but later lowered the number to 53. Parliament then approved a plan in 2011 under which 13 of those aircraft would be sold to other countries to save money, but the ministry has been unable to find willing buyers.

The longer-term costs of operating those 13 aircraft were still being assessed, but initial estimates pointed to one-time startup costs of 505 million euros, including 150 million euros needed to prepare a second A400M base, state secretary Markus Gruebel said in a letter to parliament’s budget committee.

Gruebel said the ministry continued to explore multinational use for the 13 planes, but it made sense for the German air force to use them in the meantime to offset delivery delays on the other 40 A400M aircraft Germany is buying.

You don't think they wouldn't sell those aircraft if the opportunity arose. Germany have already indicated they have more than they need and are clearly looking for ways to either offload or share the operating costs. Airbus is obviously not keen on a primary customer selling off their existing stock while they are seeking new build exports. It understandably has a detrimental impact on the perceived cost of the airframe.

JJT wrote:

Roger- rightly or wrongly ....as a primary means of deployment , that will be sloooooooow. For sustainment and support, that makes sense......and maybe they are happy with that. For humanitarian aid and disaster relief I would have thought getting a couple of helo airframes into the AO quickly would be a primary objective. If the Canterbury is beetling around in the Tasman Sea when the balloon goes up, she'll take a few days before she can make her way up into some regions of the Pacific to respond.

While I agree it isn't the fastest means of travel it creates a sustainable capability. There is little point in landing a helicopter in the middle of a humanitarian disaster and then taking valuable transport flights coming in to just maintain that capability such as fuel, spares etc. A sea based asset, especially in the south pacific where nowhere is generally very far from a coastline, is an exceptionally flexible platform to operate from and sustain RW ops for an extended duration.

I see the chances of an A400M for NZ rising but, as with the AW109s and NH-90s and likely the P-8s, NZ has a habit of not buying enough of a capability to generate the effects desired. Hopefully if they go for a larger platform in the form of the A400M the NZDF can afford enough to actually use it as intended.

Ozair wrote:

Noray wrote:

What makes you think that there are any used German A400Ms for sale?

German military to use 13 A400M aircraft after failing to find buyers

Germany initially planned to buy 60 A400M aircraft, but later lowered the number to 53. Parliament then approved a plan in 2011 under which 13 of those aircraft would be sold to other countries to save money, but the ministry has been unable to find willing buyers.

The longer-term costs of operating those 13 aircraft were still being assessed, but initial estimates pointed to one-time startup costs of 505 million euros, including 150 million euros needed to prepare a second A400M base, state secretary Markus Gruebel said in a letter to parliament’s budget committee.

Gruebel said the ministry continued to explore multinational use for the 13 planes, but it made sense for the German air force to use them in the meantime to offset delivery delays on the other 40 A400M aircraft Germany is buying.

You don't think they wouldn't sell those aircraft if the opportunity arose. Germany have already indicated they have more than they need and are clearly looking for ways to either offload or share the operating costs. Airbus is obviously not keen on a primary customer selling off their existing stock while they are seeking new build exports. It understandably has a detrimental impact on the perceived cost of the airframe.

We know that the delivery of these 13 machines will be postponed. The details are unknown yet, but the 53rd German A400M won't be delivered before 2026, according to reports from February. So it will still take a long time before these aircraft qualify as used.

Noray wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Noray wrote:

What makes you think that there are any used German A400Ms for sale?

German military to use 13 A400M aircraft after failing to find buyers

Germany initially planned to buy 60 A400M aircraft, but later lowered the number to 53. Parliament then approved a plan in 2011 under which 13 of those aircraft would be sold to other countries to save money, but the ministry has been unable to find willing buyers.

The longer-term costs of operating those 13 aircraft were still being assessed, but initial estimates pointed to one-time startup costs of 505 million euros, including 150 million euros needed to prepare a second A400M base, state secretary Markus Gruebel said in a letter to parliament’s budget committee.

Gruebel said the ministry continued to explore multinational use for the 13 planes, but it made sense for the German air force to use them in the meantime to offset delivery delays on the other 40 A400M aircraft Germany is buying.

You don't think they wouldn't sell those aircraft if the opportunity arose. Germany have already indicated they have more than they need and are clearly looking for ways to either offload or share the operating costs. Airbus is obviously not keen on a primary customer selling off their existing stock while they are seeking new build exports. It understandably has a detrimental impact on the perceived cost of the airframe.

We know that the delivery of these 13 machines will be postponed. The details are unknown yet, but the 53rd German A400M won't be delivered before 2026, according to reports from February. So it will still take a long time before these aircraft qualify as used.

Read the quote again,

Gruebel said the ministry continued to explore multinational use for the 13 planes, but it made sense for the German air force to use them in the meantime to offset delivery delays on the other 40 A400M aircraft Germany is buying.

The aircraft that Germany already tried to sell are those coming off the production line now. At the time the article was written, sorry didn't post the link but the headline should have been easily searchable https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN16O29L Germany had received approximately eleven aircraft but had obviously paid for probably their first twenty.

Irrespective Germany has tried to sell A400Ms, used and straight off the production line, and indications are they will continue to offload those jets if and when the opportunity arises.

For those interested this site lists the orders, production and delivery dates for the A400M.

https://www.abcdlist.nl/a400mf/a400mf.html#a000

The last recorded delivery was Aug 9th with the 67th airframe meaning the A400M is now over a third through its currently contracted number of production airframes.

An airforce could try to buy C-17s the Pentagon didn't want but congress pushed through.

Congress has added 18 C-17s to the defense budget over the past two years to keep the Boeing C-17 production line rolling and safeguard jobs, despite a Pentagon decision to cap production of the popular transport plane.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-pentagon/pentagon-says-does-not-need-more-boeing-c-17s-idUSN0453283420080305

In Europe politics have been cutting the flesh on defense budgets, while armed forces were begging for capacity, in the US the culture / adoration for weaponary is entirely different. Guess who are naming the other sides projects job creation