A400M Update

Grizzly410 · Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:12 pm

A French politic released a report on the French strategic airlift and a claim he made took my attention.

Il convient de mettre un terme définitif à l’illusion abondamment diffusée de « l’A400M, avion stratégique ».
Par sa capacité d’emport maximale (deux containers TC20 contre 11 pour l’Antonov 124), l’A400M avion ne peut être une solution pour le transport stratégique de fret. Il ne rivalisera jamais avec les gros porteurs, An-124 ou C5. Un Antonov 124 équivaut à 5 A400M

Rough translation, by me.

A400M is not a strategic airlifter and we need to stop consider it this way.
It can load 2 TC20 containers when an AN124 loads 11. It can't be a strategic airlifter. It will never compete against AN124 or C5. 1 AN124 lifts the same as 5 A400M.

http://www.francois.cornut-gentille.fr/ ... egique.pdf

I'm not sure why he see the needs to evaluate the airlift with TC20 containers. Is this a standard in military transport?
And this shouldn't come as a surprise that A400M is not in the same weight category than AN124 or C5, but claiming 1:5 when max payload come close to 1:3 seems exaggerated. Maybe range consideration change a lot the result and I'm not sure if the guy tries to manipulate numbers and discard A400M directly to suit his agenda (france too much dependent of the rusian/ukranian strategic airlift).

Any thoughts?

Slug71 · Thu May 18, 2017 6:21 pm

Any updates or news on this bad boy?

Grizzly410 · Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:48 pm

German AirForce received its 9th copy yesterday, MSN49 : 54+10
It's the 6th delivery of 2017.

Nothing more to report right now...

Revelation · Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:22 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
German AirForce received its 9th copy yesterday, MSN49 : 54+10
It's the 6th delivery of 2017.

Nothing more to report right now...

Regardless, thanks for the update, Grizzly410!

aviationaware · Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:00 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
German AirForce received its 9th copy yesterday, MSN49 : 54+10
It's the 6th delivery of 2017.

Nothing more to report right now...

This won't speed up any time soon either as long as the German Air Force keeps refusing to take planes with tiny scratches on the painting of control panels. Makes you wonder if those people have ever seen how a military plane looks after its first mission. By the way, this same mentality causes the Berlin airport to be pushed back year after year. It's just ludicrous.

Grizzly410 · Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:59 am

aviationaware wrote:
This won't speed up any time soon either as long as the German Air Force keeps refusing to take planes with tiny scratches on the painting of control panels.

Believe it or not but although Germans are known for what you're describing, I heard they're not the pickiest A400M customer. (uncontested second, though)

I think you're wrong, GAF delivery are currently speeding up ! They will receive the most of 2017 delivery, already 2 and 7 more to come this year.
And I believe they're prepared for that because last month we saw MSN49 and its little sister MSN48 (both GAF) doing Customer Acceptance flights in the same period, indicating GAF have now two "acceptance team".

WhiIe I agree looking for scratches and cosmetic defect on military plane seems pointless, it seems to me that's part of the "game". I mean, the more the buyer team find defects the more it can negotiate discount, and as much as it can be ridiculous any scratch is a defect that can be negate by the OEM.

keesje · Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:27 pm

RAF is putting A400 crew through their low level training since early 2017, the Mach loop in Wales.

https://youtu.be/09l-Wc_33fk?t=2m2s

Slug71 · Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:56 am

Are all the missing capabilities still on track to be completed by next year?

keesje · Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:59 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Are all the missing capabilities still on track to be completed by next year?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/french-air-force-happy-airbus-a400m-progress

Unprepared runways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIxy6Gt3QUA

CX747 · Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:05 pm

Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

This is not a "game changer" but a dud. Gearbox issues, a countermeasure suite that fails to meet standards and still no helo refuel capability. Sounds like a real winner. The A400 fleet continues to fall short while other platforms do the real work in Iraq, Afghanistan and a thousand other places.

The proof is in the pudding that a joint fleet of 12 C-130Js will be operated by France & Germany. That number of 12 by the way is the minimum that will be operated. Germany has already stated an intent to procure another 6 if funds are available.

C-130E, H and J models have been hauling the trash and getting the JOB done in places the A400 still hasn't even attempted. Foreign nations would be better served buying surplus USAF C-130H models. Have heavy maintenance done, dump one of the updated glass cockpits into it and take home a bird at a fraction of the cost that really fits the mission profile needs of most countries.

If a nation needs more than a C-130 brings to the table, "buy" some airtime of the massive worldwide fleet of C-17s, a USAF C-5 or a Russian freight hauler.

Nicoeddf · Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:31 am

CX747 wrote:
Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

This is not a "game changer" but a dud. Gearbox issues, a countermeasure suite that fails to meet standards and still no helo refuel capability. Sounds like a real winner. The A400 fleet continues to fall short while other platforms do the real work in Iraq, Afghanistan and a thousand other places.

The proof is in the pudding that a joint fleet of 12 C-130Js will be operated by France & Germany. That number of 12 by the way is the minimum that will be operated. Germany has already stated an intent to procure another 6 if funds are available.

C-130E, H and J models have been hauling the trash and getting the JOB done in places the A400 still hasn't even attempted. Foreign nations would be better served buying surplus USAF C-130H models. Have heavy maintenance done, dump one of the updated glass cockpits into it and take home a bird at a fraction of the cost that really fits the mission profile needs of most countries.

If a nation needs more than a C-130 brings to the table, "buy" some airtime of the massive worldwide fleet of C-17s, a USAF C-5 or a Russian freight hauler.

Feel better now? All the steam out of the system

Reality is, the plane will be a great performer after maturing. Like all the other "duds" of the various manufacturers have been performing after maturing eventually.

You know, France and Germany will likely be better of anyway flying mixed fleets. Different capabilities for different cost per flight hour. Think that's a good idea as a taxpayer.
But rant on

And seriously...people need to stop this game changer crap. It's all evolution...

KarelXWB · Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:17 am

CX747 wrote:
Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

How would the A400M perform in 14-15 years from now?

jupiter2 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:55 am

KarelXWB wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

How would the A400M perform in 14-15 years from now?

Hopefully really well, but we know that the C-130 and C-17 will still be performing excellent duty. The C-130 must be one of the best and most enduring designs ever in aviation history.

Revelation · Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:25 am

KarelXWB wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

How would the A400M perform in 14-15 years from now?

It seems it won't be refueling helicopters in 14-15 years unless the "research project" ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-h ... ch-project ) comes up with a solution.

In my experience, when we call something a "research project" it means we really don't have a workable solution in sight.

It turns out that giant turboprops are pretty good for getting large transports off the ground, but they do generate a lot of turbulence, apparently more than predicted.

KarelXWB · Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:30 am

Revelation wrote:
It seems it won't be refueling helicopters in 14-15 years unless the "research project" ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-h ... ch-project ) comes up with a solution.

Article dates from 2015 (!), the refuel system has been redesigned and is about to get certified:

After testing a beach landing capability with a Royal Air Force A400M earlier this month, Airbus Defence & Space says it is on track to qualify a redesigned helicopter refuelling system, roll-out a final solution to a power gearbox problem and resolve a dispute over penalties caused by delivery delays.

...

In the meantime, Airbus is working to address requirements that the A400M is currently unable to meet. The company has successfully tested an extended refuelling hose that can allow the Atlas to support helicopters, Alonso says, and it is now waiting for OCCAR to approve the proposed redesign.

Ref https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ac-438229/

Revelation · Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:34 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It seems it won't be refueling helicopters in 14-15 years unless the "research project" ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-h ... ch-project ) comes up with a solution.

Article dates from 2015 (!), the refuel system has been redesigned and is about to get certified:

After testing a beach landing capability with a Royal Air Force A400M earlier this month, Airbus Defence & Space says it is on track to qualify a redesigned helicopter refuelling system, roll-out a final solution to a power gearbox problem and resolve a dispute over penalties caused by delivery delays.

...

In the meantime, Airbus is working to address requirements that the A400M is currently unable to meet. The company has successfully tested an extended refuelling hose that can allow the Atlas to support helicopters, Alonso says, and it is now waiting for OCCAR to approve the proposed redesign.

Ref https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ac-438229/

That's a very quick turnaround on a difficult problem. Hope the qualifications go well!

Grizzly410 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:37 am

CX747 wrote:
Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

I don't know for Irak, I haven't read anywhere France couldn't landing in Irak. Do you have some source on that ?

Same thing for the 50% of the fleet not available, any source? Since the gearbox fix they seem to be satisfied, from the lieutenant-colonel Paul Villemin "officier programme A400M à l'état-major de l'armée de l'air", which I think is a more than credible source :
"L'armée de l'air est complètement satisfaite des avions à ce stade de développement, et leur fiabilité est devenue très acceptable", translated by me : "French Airforce is entirely satisfied of its aircrafts at this stage of development, their reliability is now very acceptable"
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servi ... 5q31VOH.99

Whereas the availability of the C-130H seems to be "desperately low" (désespérement basse).
http://www.opex360.com/2017/03/29/epee- ... rancaises/

keesje · Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:20 pm

CX747 wrote:
..

Cool & not from here leads to surprizing perceptions.

KarelXWB · Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:48 am

Few updates on the program:

A400M's "Pack 2" gearbox fix nears certification

Slug71 · Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:42 pm

CX747 wrote:
Hmm, half of France's fleet is not available and they consider "landing in Iraq" a vote of confidence. Well, well, C-130s, C-17s and a host of other transport aircraft have been landing in Iraq for almost 14-15 years now and have better than 50-60% availability.

This is not a "game changer" but a dud. Gearbox issues, a countermeasure suite that fails to meet standards and still no helo refuel capability. Sounds like a real winner. The A400 fleet continues to fall short while other platforms do the real work in Iraq, Afghanistan and a thousand other places.

The proof is in the pudding that a joint fleet of 12 C-130Js will be operated by France & Germany. That number of 12 by the way is the minimum that will be operated. Germany has already stated an intent to procure another 6 if funds are available.

C-130E, H and J models have been hauling the trash and getting the JOB done in places the A400 still hasn't even attempted. Foreign nations would be better served buying surplus USAF C-130H models. Have heavy maintenance done, dump one of the updated glass cockpits into it and take home a bird at a fraction of the cost that really fits the mission profile needs of most countries.

If a nation needs more than a C-130 brings to the table, "buy" some airtime of the massive worldwide fleet of C-17s, a USAF C-5 or a Russian freight hauler.

There's always that one....

I would hardly call it a dud. This aircraft is still very much in it's infancy phase compared to the C-130 and C-17. This is also a first for Airbus, going into this territory. So teething issues are to be expected. A lot of politics also went into this project and is probably responsible for a lot of the issues and delays. But I have no doubt that it will prevail and be very successful in the years to come. Once all the fixes are implemented and aircraft start rolling off the line with Full Capability, it probably will be a game changer.
I imagine it will even get additional capabilities in the not too distant future.

RE: the last post about the Pack 2 PGB fix, glad to see progress being made and certification is around the corner. Soon should be testing of the heli refueling update too. Low-level terrain following, and updated self-protection can't be too far off either.

Nicoeddf · Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:40 pm

@Slug71

Great Post! Just: no, it wont be a game changer. Seriously when was the last time in the industry anything changing the game? I suggest it was 707...
This word is used way too often.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:12 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
@Slug71

Great Post! Just: no, it wont be a game changer. Seriously when was the last time in the industry anything changing the game? I suggest it was 707...
This word is used way too often.

First commercial jet and the first widebody, after that mostly evolution no game changer. I agree, too much is labeled as a gamechanger.

keesje · Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:08 pm

"Game changer" is up to the users.

It can fly from Europe via commercial airways at M .7 into Africa / Middle East land on a unprepared strip and unload 30-40t of goods including serious sized vehicles. A C-17 can't really land / brake on soft ground without fallowing it. A C130/ Transall can, but has become too small to handle serious vehicles.

Ozair · Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:31 am

keesje wrote:
"Game changer" is up to the users.

It can fly from Europe via commercial airways at M .7 into Africa / Middle East land on a unprepared strip and unload 30-40t of goods including serious sized vehicles. A C-17 can't really land / brake on soft ground without fallowing it. A C130/ Transall can, but has become too small to handle serious vehicles.

The devil is in the details. There is a big difference in range between 30t and 40t, as evidenced by the airbus slide below.

At 37t it won't make it to the Middle East and just brushes the top of Africa.
At 30t it can get to close to a third of Africa and most of the Middle East minus Iran.

Problem being it won't take that payload and then fly back home, you still need the fuel bowser at the other end to fill the aircraft up. Hence flying into unpaved areas makes little sense and why the French haven't flown the A400M into unpaved strips in Africa/Middle East yet.

Also not much point comparing the C-17 to the A400M, they are in completely different weight/range classes, essentially you're comparing a 747 and a A320. The C-17 is also quite capable of landing on unpaved runways and has done so operationally for the last ten years. The issue with the C-17, and would be similar for the A400M, is landing on the same semi-prepared runway multiple times.

Aside from the above, operationally dropping a 37t armoured vehicle 1700nm away is useless if you can't support that vehicle with fuel, ammunition, food, spares etc. You need multiple drops and continued support for that unrealistic scenario, hence why they use paved runways and land move vehicles closer to the FEBA.

Slug71 · Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:32 am

Don't think range is too much of an issue for the C-17 and A400m since they can both be refuelled in-flight.

mjoelnir · Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:52 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Soon should be testing of the heli refueling update too. Low-level terrain following, and updated self-protection can't be too far off either.

As far as I know the testing has been done, the wait is now for certification.

Nicoeddf · Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:36 pm

keesje wrote:
"Game changer" is up to the users.

It can fly from Europe via commercial airways at M .7 into Africa / Middle East land on a unprepared strip and unload 30-40t of goods including serious sized vehicles. A C-17 can't really land / brake on soft ground without fallowing it. A C130/ Transall can, but has become too small to handle serious vehicles.

Still not changing the game. The business of bringing military and/or outsized cargo to paved and unpaved strips is known since at least 50 years in the quality we know today. Yes, A/C got more efficient, yes, the gained capabiltiy. Game changing as in seriously changing the way things are done? Hardly. Not for the users, not for anybody else.

keesje · Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:14 am

It's a game changer for European armed forces.

It's a huge step up in rapid deployment and capability into surrounding regions for various missions the Transall, C130s / C17s couldn't do.

RAF beach tests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCiSyH4_7NM

SCAT15F · Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:23 pm

The amount of dislike for turboprops on this site never fails to amaze me...

Nicoeddf · Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:30 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
The amount of dislike for turboprops on this site never fails to amaze me...

Where do you get that from?

tommy1808 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:33 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
Still not changing the game. The business of bringing military and/or outsized cargo to paved and unpaved strips is known since at least 50 years in the quality we know today. Yes, A/C got more efficient, yes, the gained capabiltiy. Game changing as in seriously changing the way things are done? Hardly. Not for the users, not for anybody else.

This is a game changer, if you look at the right nische. It can fly pretty much all NATO combat vehicles aside of MBTs into a CBR6 unpaved field and land 25 ton payload with enough fuel to get out of there and fly 500nm or to a tanker and all the way home to a 2500 feet rough strip. And do that 40 times before the strip needs refurbishment. Just like the C130 it can fly into CBR4 fields. A C17 lands on a CBR8 once before it needs refurbishing. It does all that just a notch slower than the C17.

It is pretty much a C-141 Starlifter, payload, making babies wth a C160, rough field capability wise. That is very unique,

best regards
Thomas

SeJoWa · Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:32 am

keesje, thank you for the reference to that very recent beach landing video. Very interesting precision touch-and-go.

KarelXWB · Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:01 pm

Another one for Turkey delivered:

Airbus A400M -180 55 160055 Türk Hava Kuvvetleri delivery 14jul17 SVQ-LTAU ex A4M055

keesje · Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:27 am

I think many requirements will come up with many airforces all over the world in the 10-15 years.

The A400M will mature and economies of scale will be realized.

Sales will come https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M No competition helps too.

Ozair · Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:28 pm

keesje wrote:
I think many requirements will come up with many airforces all over the world in the 10-15 years.

The A400M will mature and economies of scale will be realized.

Sales will come https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M No competition helps too.

I think the requirements of militaries works against the A400. How many nations around the globe have the expeditionary requirement to move heavy armored vehicles by air? Those that do have ordered C-17s or A400Ms already. The rest of the tactical transport market should be satisfied with the smaller and cheaper to acquire and operate C-130, KC-390, C-2 etc.

keesje · Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:49 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think many requirements will come up with many airforces all over the world in the 10-15 years.

The A400M will mature and economies of scale will be realized.

Sales will come https://youtu.be/5JIamYBaU0M No competition helps too.

I think the requirements of militaries works against the A400. How many nations around the globe have the expeditionary requirement to move heavy armored vehicles by air? Those that do have ordered C-17s or A400Ms already. The rest of the tactical transport market should be satisfied with the smaller and cheaper to acquire and operate C-130, KC-390, C-2 etc.

I think the capabilities of the mentioned aircraft are far enough apart to make them complemenatry. A400M operators will always need additional smaller aircraft to move around some pallets, people. equipment for which a A400M woud be expensive overkill. A400m's will be there for more demanding and/ or larger scale operations.

Ozair · Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:45 am

keesje wrote:
A400M operators will always need additional smaller aircraft to move around some pallets, people. equipment for which a A400M would be expensive overkill. A400m's will be there for more demanding and/ or larger scale operations.

That doesn't address the issue of requirements. As already stated, there are few nations that have the requirement to move heavy armored vehicles by air. If the purpose is to move large goods around then smaller nations can always resort to commercial contractors. As a smaller military you don't, and can't afford to, have a few A400Ms hanging around just in case things get more demanding or become larger scale.

If you think new nations will order the A400M, who do you think these are and looking at their respective current transport fleets and anticipated future requirements where is the demand for the A400M going to come from?

Kiwirob · Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:07 am

New Zealand will order A400 to replace there fleet of Hercs.

seat55a · Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:32 am

Kiwirob wrote:
New Zealand will order A400 to replace there fleet of Hercs.

With what money? Has either side even suggested this is a possibility? (apart from marketing hype I mean)

From what little I know I'd say it's between the Embraer (budget choice) or 130 J (familiar choice).

ThePointblank · Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:37 am

Kiwirob wrote:
New Zealand will order A400 to replace there fleet of Hercs.

Doubt it.

The A400M, while capable, is pretty expensive, and reading up on the exact timelines the Kiwi's want their replacement aircraft, they want the first aircraft delivered by February 2020 with IOC February 2021 and FOC February 2024. The Kiwi's also indicated that the new capability solution has to be at no less than equivalent current capability so that may exclude the C295 as interim lift and the delivery date of February 2020 makes it difficult for the A400M because the earliest available production slots based upon confirmed orders are in 2022. Realistically, New Zealand would be looking at A400M delivery of around 2024, four years after the required delivery date, with another 2 more years at least to achieve IOC, let alone FOC. That's not acceptable to them.

I doubt the major partners of the A400M are willing to give up their production slots for later aircraft because most of the major partners need replacement aircraft yesterday.

That leaves the C-130J for New Zealand as the most likely option; it provides equivalent capability to their current C-130H fleet, and Australia is right next door with their fleet of C-130J's, so some cooperation can be had there.

seat55a · Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:43 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Australia is right next door with their fleet of C-130J's, so some cooperation can be had there.

Not to mention the NYANG operating to Antarctica from CHC. [edit] although they are not Js

WIederling · Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:06 am

ThePointblank wrote:
I doubt the major partners of the A400M are willing to give up their production slots for later aircraft because most of the major partners need replacement aircraft yesterday.

Think again.
Germany is very interested in dropping some slots to some new buyers.

ThePointblank · Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:20 am

WIederling wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
I doubt the major partners of the A400M are willing to give up their production slots for later aircraft because most of the major partners need replacement aircraft yesterday.

Think again.
Germany is very interested in dropping some slots to some new buyers.

I'm talking about confirmed aircraft that are under contract and accounted for in the production queue. The line is booked until 2022 for aircraft going to confirmed customers. Not aircraft that have not been accounted for or planning to be flipped upon delivery.

And Germany will only try to flip the late deliveries; they need the A400M's yesterday to replace a very worn out and beat fleet of C-160 Transalls (beyond trying to deal with the current poor availability rates with the A400M right now). Based upon Airbus' current rate of production, these aircraft will only be available after mid to late 2020, which isn't early enough to meet New Zealand's requirements. And I don't see Airbus increasing production rates for such a small order.

Also, the Germans have backtracked and are confirmed to keep the aircraft they intended to sell to new buyers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN16O29L

They may try to share them in a multi-national joint force with Switzerland and the Czech Republic among others; there are talks ongoing with that.

Revelation · Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:31 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Also, the Germans have backtracked and are confirmed to keep the aircraft they intended to sell to new buyers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN16O29L

They may try to share them in a multi-national joint force with Switzerland and the Czech Republic among others; there are talks ongoing with that.

Interesting quote from the Reuters piece:

Tobias Lindner, a member of the Greens party and the budget committee, said the decision showed that the renegotiation of the A400M contract in 2010 had been based on false expectations about the airplane's export prospects.

Similar things were being said right here back in 2010. It was very obvious that there was no way to sell those 13 frames especially given that Airbus made them insist on those slots being put to the end of the line so that GER couldn't compete with its own sales efforts. Airbus's own sales would take away any potential buyer long before GER could sell the frames. It was obvious that it was a parliamentary move to make the shit sandwich of the increasing A400M costs and delays less difficult to swallow. All along it was clear the sale of the 13 frames was a non-starter, and the end result would be that the government would get to look tough but the frames would be end up in the Luftwaffe anyway.

Kiwirob · Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:21 pm

The govt also want to be able to transport NZLAV and NH90, the A400 can do that, a Herc can't. I don't see us buying new Hercs.

Kiwirob · Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:26 pm

seat55a wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
New Zealand will order A400 to replace there fleet of Hercs.

With what money? Has either side even suggested this is a possibility? (apart from marketing hype I mean)

From what little I know I'd say it's between the Embraer (budget choice) or 130 J (familiar choice).

NZ has the money, the govt is budgeting surpluses for the next several years. The govt has a kitty of 20 billion for the military, the first big ticket item was the new fleet tanker HMNZS Aotearoa, currently building in Korea.

Ozair · Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:19 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
seat55a wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
New Zealand will order A400 to replace there fleet of Hercs.

With what money? Has either side even suggested this is a possibility? (apart from marketing hype I mean)

From what little I know I'd say it's between the Embraer (budget choice) or 130 J (familiar choice).

NZ has the money, the govt is budgeting surpluses for the next several years. The govt has a kitty of 20 billion for the military, the first big ticket item was the new fleet tanker HMNZS Aotearoa, currently building in Korea.

New Zealand acquiring the A400M is certainly likely. Some info on potential options and an expression of a NZDF requirement to at least explore heavier lift.

I have noted previously that the supporting documents accompanying the 2016 Defence White Paper (sadly no longer available online) were clear that the five current C-130H aircraft would be replaced with a 'like-for-like replacement of the current C-130 fleet'. In addition, 'adjusting the planned replacement of the current 2 Boeing 757 to a like-for-like force … would maintain the Defence Force’s strategic airlift capability at current levels...' Clearly the C-17 is not a replacement for 757s, and it is debatable whether the A400M is a replacement for the C-130s. However, a 2016 Minute from the Office of the Minister of Defence to the Cabinet National Security Committee noted that, 'increases in Capability have been partially offset at this time (my emphasis) by maintaining the Defence Force’s planned strategic airlift capability (currently provided by the C-130 and Boeing 757 aircraft) at present levels when it is replaced in the early 2020s.' Nevertheless it went on to add that, 'officials will re-examine this level of capability, including support to our presence in Antarctica, and associated funding as part of the 2018 mid-point refresh.'

The Antarctic mission is undoubtedly a key driver for enhanced capability. One capability Ministers would like to have is to be able fly to Antarctica and have sufficient fuel to return to New Zealand should the weather not permit a landing (a disastrous scenario that nearly came about in October 2013). The Cabinet Minute noted, ‘the C-17 is the only aircraft available that offers a proven capability to undertake Antarctic passenger and cargo flights without a point of safe return.’ Whilst it may be true that the C-17 is the only heavy military airlifter that offers this capability, other (civilian) aircraft are available that can do the job. While I have argued previously that an Airbus A321 might be a suitable replacement for the 757, a Boeing 777-200ER or an Airbus A330 would provide significantly more capability. There are many 777s on the used market at a reasonable price; they are a contemporary wide-bodied jet with the range to fly to Antarctica and return if need be. Their payload is more than twice that of a 757, and for VIP transport they are an inter-continental aircraft. They have commonality with Air New Zealand, whilst the Airbus A330 has commonality with the military version (KC-30) flown by the Royal Australian Air Force. If a capable civilian aircraft were purchased that could undertake Antarctic operations, might there be no need for a heavy airlifter?

In a November 2014 briefing to the Minister of Defence it was noted that, “Preliminary requirements work has identified a potential need for at least part of the future air capability mix to include an aircraft with a larger capacity than current aircraft.” A Hercules can’t airlift the NH-90 helicopter, or a LAV III light armoured vehicle. It’s questionable how often these tasks would need to be undertaken, however, or whether other options, such as transportation by the HMNZS Canterbury, or the lease of heavy lift aircraft might be an option. When it comes to tactical airlift, the Defence Capability Plan 2016 asks for a “capability that supports…search and rescue tasks”. The Hercules C-130 has regularly been required to perform in this role, when a P-3 Orion has not been available. Should the six Orions be replaced by Boeing P-8 Poseidons as Wayne Mapp has suggested they will, then it seems unlikely that the same number would be available and the C-130 or its replacement would be called upon. Would there be more utility gained from three A400ms, or five C-130Js? Trade-offs here seem to be between the greater capability of the larger and more expensive A400M and a C-130 where the track record is clear.

http://www.incline.org.nz/home/flying-i ... -the-rnzaf

So NZ contributes an additional three, maybe four frames to the A400M which would be less than half a year of production at the current rate, unless as suggested they take nearly new airframes from Germany in 2025.

Either way, NZ alone will not keep the A400M in production another 10-15 years. Who else might be interested or have a requirement?

ThePointblank · Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:25 am

Ozair wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
seat55a wrote:
With what money? Has either side even suggested this is a possibility? (apart from marketing hype I mean)

From what little I know I'd say it's between the Embraer (budget choice) or 130 J (familiar choice).

NZ has the money, the govt is budgeting surpluses for the next several years. The govt has a kitty of 20 billion for the military, the first big ticket item was the new fleet tanker HMNZS Aotearoa, currently building in Korea.

New Zealand acquiring the A400M is certainly likely. Some info on potential options and an expression of a NZDF requirement to at least explore heavier lift.
I have noted previously that the supporting documents accompanying the 2016 Defence White Paper (sadly no longer available online) were clear that the five current C-130H aircraft would be replaced with a 'like-for-like replacement of the current C-130 fleet'. In addition, 'adjusting the planned replacement of the current 2 Boeing 757 to a like-for-like force … would maintain the Defence Force’s strategic airlift capability at current levels...' Clearly the C-17 is not a replacement for 757s, and it is debatable whether the A400M is a replacement for the C-130s. However, a 2016 Minute from the Office of the Minister of Defence to the Cabinet National Security Committee noted that, 'increases in Capability have been partially offset at this time (my emphasis) by maintaining the Defence Force’s planned strategic airlift capability (currently provided by the C-130 and Boeing 757 aircraft) at present levels when it is replaced in the early 2020s.' Nevertheless it went on to add that, 'officials will re-examine this level of capability, including support to our presence in Antarctica, and associated funding as part of the 2018 mid-point refresh.'

The Antarctic mission is undoubtedly a key driver for enhanced capability. One capability Ministers would like to have is to be able fly to Antarctica and have sufficient fuel to return to New Zealand should the weather not permit a landing (a disastrous scenario that nearly came about in October 2013). The Cabinet Minute noted, ‘the C-17 is the only aircraft available that offers a proven capability to undertake Antarctic passenger and cargo flights without a point of safe return.’ Whilst it may be true that the C-17 is the only heavy military airlifter that offers this capability, other (civilian) aircraft are available that can do the job. While I have argued previously that an Airbus A321 might be a suitable replacement for the 757, a Boeing 777-200ER or an Airbus A330 would provide significantly more capability. There are many 777s on the used market at a reasonable price; they are a contemporary wide-bodied jet with the range to fly to Antarctica and return if need be. Their payload is more than twice that of a 757, and for VIP transport they are an inter-continental aircraft. They have commonality with Air New Zealand, whilst the Airbus A330 has commonality with the military version (KC-30) flown by the Royal Australian Air Force. If a capable civilian aircraft were purchased that could undertake Antarctic operations, might there be no need for a heavy airlifter?

In a November 2014 briefing to the Minister of Defence it was noted that, “Preliminary requirements work has identified a potential need for at least part of the future air capability mix to include an aircraft with a larger capacity than current aircraft.” A Hercules can’t airlift the NH-90 helicopter, or a LAV III light armoured vehicle. It’s questionable how often these tasks would need to be undertaken, however, or whether other options, such as transportation by the HMNZS Canterbury, or the lease of heavy lift aircraft might be an option. When it comes to tactical airlift, the Defence Capability Plan 2016 asks for a “capability that supports…search and rescue tasks”. The Hercules C-130 has regularly been required to perform in this role, when a P-3 Orion has not been available. Should the six Orions be replaced by Boeing P-8 Poseidons as Wayne Mapp has suggested they will, then it seems unlikely that the same number would be available and the C-130 or its replacement would be called upon. Would there be more utility gained from three A400ms, or five C-130Js? Trade-offs here seem to be between the greater capability of the larger and more expensive A400M and a C-130 where the track record is clear.

http://www.incline.org.nz/home/flying-i ... -the-rnzaf

So NZ contributes an additional three, maybe four frames to the A400M which would be less than half a year of production at the current rate, unless as suggested they take nearly new airframes from Germany in 2025.

Either way, NZ alone will not keep the A400M in production another 10-15 years. Who else might be interested or have a requirement?

The RNZAF is also replacing the Boeing 757 combi's within a similar timeframe; they are looking for first deliveries by Feb 2025, with all deliveries by Feb 2026.

If anything, the C-130J would be a direct C-130H replacement, and maybe 2-3 larger aircraft will replace the Boeing 757's.

I would lean more towards the Kawasaki C-2 as a potential candidate; it's about the same size as the A400M, but cheaper.

keesje · Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:09 pm

Ozair wrote:
..Who else might be interested or have a requirement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_operators

Filter out the smaller ones.

Focus on all that have requirements for
- moving new gen armed vehicles
- are involved in international UN / relief missions
- operate regionally
- have medium helicopters to move around
- benefit from independent fast jet tanker availability
- special forces capability

It doesn't make much sense who has a requirements based on current fleets, because there hasn't been a similar performance tactical aircraft for some time.

Ozair · Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:32 pm

keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:
..Who else might be interested or have a requirement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_operators

Filter out the smaller ones.

Focus on all that have requirements for
- moving new gen armed vehicles
- are involved in international UN / relief missions
- operate regionally
- have medium helicopters to move around
- benefit from independent fast jet tanker availability
- special forces capability

It doesn't make much sense who has a requirements based on current fleets, because there hasn't been a similar performance tactical aircraft for some time.

Keeje given you were the one who claimed the requirement existed you are welcome to do the analysis...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net