Ozair wrote:

Noray wrote:

Ozair wrote:

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


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.

You not only failed to prove your assertion that Germany tried to sell used A400Ms. Did you actually read your own link? The headline says:

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

So that's about the opposite of what you were trying to make us believe.

Noray wrote:

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

There are no used A400M frames for sale.

Germany wants to sell off _new_ frames from their assigned contingent. i.e. reduce the batch size they want to keep.

Noray wrote:

You not only failed to prove your assertion that Germany tried to sell used A400Ms. Did you actually read your own link? The headline says:

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

So that's about the opposite of what you were trying to make us believe.

Noray, the context and my statements on the article are very clear. Choose to interpret it how you may but what I have stated is supported by the facts presented.

Noray wrote:

So that's about the opposite of what you were trying to make us believe.

Less than fair arguing technique. ( and nobody else than you stated anything about used frames.
You should be more careful with alleging other posters to be lying by way of producing your own lie.

Planning now is to use them due to current lack of interest.
This may again change when some other nation ( or organisation?) shows interest.

WIederling wrote:

Noray wrote:

So that's about the opposite of what you were trying to make us believe.

Less than fair arguing technique. ( and nobody else than you stated anything about used frames.

Nobody except:

Ozair wrote:

The A400M's best chance for NZ is likely used German airframes at a heavily discounted price

BTW.:

Ozair wrote:

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.

The last recorded delivery can't always be found at the bottom of that list. In this case you missed MSN074, Sep 27, 2018 (68th delivered).

Ozair wrote:

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.

I think the new versus used thing is an exercise in pedantry.

The bottom line is Germany has more than it needs and also has budget pressure, so they are looking for opportunities to, as you say, offload a lot of A400Ms.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... fails.html makes things clearer:

The financial burden of Germany’s Ministry of defense is likely to increase by at least € 500 million, as it will have to keep and operate the 13 excess Airbus A400M transport aircraft it signed up for in 2010.

Germany ordered more A400Ms than it needed to obtain a larger workshare for its industry, and intended to sell them on before they were delivered, but this has now been decided impossible as no takers have been found. This was first reported by Tageschau news show on Germany’s ARD broadcast network.

More details:

Germany originally said it would but 60 A400Ms, but when the program was re-baselined in 2010 reduced its planed offtake to 53, with the remaining 7 turned into options. However, since its operational needs do not exceed 40 aircraft, it has been trying since 2011 to get rid of 13 A400M transport aircraft. The Luftwaffe does not need any more, Airbus did not accept a cancellation, so the Budget Committee decided in January 2011 to plan for the immediate resale of the excess aircraft together with Airbus.

It goes on to say storing the frames is expensive and impractical (why?) so they should be operated, but the existing bases don't have enough space and it makes no sense to have more at the existing bases, so EUR 500M is needed to facilities, hiring and training personnel, and acquiring ancillary equipment needed to operate the extra A400Ms.

If you think someone is unhappy about this, you are right:

For Tobias Lindner, who sits for the Greens Party on the Defense and Budget Committees, the admission by the Ministry of Defense is a kind of bankruptcy: "This decision makes it clear that the renegotiations of the A400M Treaty of 2010 do not stand up to reality," Lindner said.

He is particularly annoyed by the fact that the Federal Government had also granted the manufacturer Airbus a 500-million-euro loan, the repayment of which depended directly on future success of the A400M.

The repayment of the export credit is now extremely questionable in view of the lack of export prospects for the 13 surplus aircraft.

"The ministry itself quantifies the risk of default with about 1.2 billion euros. The A400M program is and will remain a child needing care," says Lindner.

Seems the only sizeable potential export customer order is Saudi Arabia, but one could imagine Airbus wants that business for its own bottom line, and its overly generous owner-nations will probably let them have it, with the result of Germany eating hundreds of millions of euros of loss.

I don't think this is too difficult:

1 The German airforce needed 40 A400s
2 The German Government ordered 60 for political reasons (more workshare for German manufacturers)
3 The German government opportunistically converted 7 of the surplus 20 into options, leaving 13 surplus deliveries to their air force.
4 They would prefer other countries to buy the 13 straight off the production line as that is most beneficial for the German taxpayer.
5 They may end up trying to sell 13 "used" instead, at a loss

Revelation wrote:

I think the new versus used thing is an exercise in pedantry.

No, as it implies that Germany are trying to sell aircraft which they currently operate. And somebody on this forum, on Twitter or elsewhere will certainly spin that into: "The A400M is such an awful machine that the Luftwaffe wants to get rid of it", which is a lie.

Actually, at this moment, there are various and contrasting possibilities of what will happen with Germany's A400Ms #41 to #53. This depends not only on the development of the German military budget and possible partners for an international A400M unit in Germany, but also on the ongoing negotiations with Airbus.

A possible second A400M base is Lechfeld in Bavaria. There are speculations that a decision on Lechfeld has been put on hold in order not to interfere with the regional elections in Bavaria that will take place tomorrow.

Noray wrote:

No, as it implies that Germany are trying to sell aircraft which they currently operate. And somebody on this forum, on Twitter or elsewhere will certainly spin that into: "The A400M is such an awful machine that the Luftwaffe wants to get rid of it", which is a lie.

And they will spin selling the newer ones as "A400M is so bad Germany refuses to take factory fresh new ones". Personally I think selling the used ones is easier to defend. They can claim they want the new ones with all the delayed features finally in place while they sell off the early beaters to someone else.

Noray wrote:

Actually, at this moment, there are various and contrasting possibilities of what will happen with Germany's A400Ms #41 to #53. This depends not only on the development of the German military budget and possible partners for an international A400M unit in Germany, but also on the ongoing negotiations with Airbus.

The article I just posted suggested that all such plans for an international A400M unit have failed and plans are being made to operate all 53, but of course there is the cost to recon with.

Noray wrote:

A possible second A400M base is Lechfeld in Bavaria. There are speculations that a decision on Lechfeld has been put on hold in order not to interfere with the regional elections in Bavaria that will take place tomorrow.

That makes sense.

As mentioned above Germany made a big gamble and bought more than they need in order to justify a larger work share. It makes one wonder what amount of thinking went in to the case where the program became so costly that only the richest nations could afford to buy A400Ms thus selling off the surplus would become very difficult. I suspect not much at all, because the people who made the deal got to claim victory for bringing home the work share and are all probably retired or close to being so.

Now we find ourselves in a scenario where the 2010 agreement is leaving a bad taste in the sponsor nation's mouths, the program has just made a lot of layoffs and stretched out the production schedule, yet the big bills are still coming in.

I think we see why partisans keep trying to find scenarios where the US will take up dozens if not hundreds of A400Ms -- it's the only scenario that could possibly turn the program around. The problem is the machine is suited for the intra-continent NATO EU cold war scenarios as opposed to inter-continental force projection, and it's damn expensive for its role, and the obvious political issues, and the fact that the US has lots of C5s, C17s and C130s in its fleet already, and has to pay for F-35, B-21, trainers, drones, etc.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I don't think this is too difficult:

1 The German airforce needed 40 A400s
2 The German Government ordered 60 for political reasons (more workshare for German manufacturers)
3 The German government opportunistically converted 7 of the surplus 20 into options, leaving 13 surplus deliveries to their air force.
4 They would prefer other countries to buy the 13 straight off the production line as that is most beneficial for the German taxpayer.
5 They may end up trying to sell 13 "used" instead, at a loss

The uncertainties start with your first point. Did they:

(A) need 40
and/or did
(B) the powerful budget committee of the Bundestag limit the number to 40?

(B) is actually true. (A) depends on the missions that the Bundeswehr is assigned to by politics, and politics is a matter of conflicting interests. All military matters in Germany are watched suspiciously by the press and large parts of the political spectrum. Defense politicians may decide that aerial transport should become a core competence of the German military, and something which Germany can contribute to international missions without remorse, as unarmed units like aerial transport wings are less controversial to the German public than fighting units. But they didn't obtain the neccessary budget.

Revelation wrote:

Personally I think selling the used ones is easier to defend. They can claim they want the new ones with all the delayed features finally in place while they sell off the early beaters to someone else.

That would be pointless as Airbus is obliged to bring the old machines to the contractually guaranteed condition.

Revelation wrote:

The article I just posted suggested that all such plans for an international A400M unit have failed and plans are being made to operate all 53, but of course there is the cost to recon with.

The article says: "there are no concrete advances on this project, although negotiations continue". If Germany decides to open an airbase for the machines, negotiations will have a new foundation.

Revelation wrote:

As mentioned above Germany made a big gamble and bought more than they need in order to justify a larger work share.

In the 1990s, Germany had planned to buy 75 Future Large Aircraft. In the late 1990s, the Antonov AN-70 was the German favourite. It was cheaper than the A400M, Germany would have been able to afford that many and had allocated the corresponding budget. Then came the British and French and persuaded Germany to buy the A400M. Germany was still suffering from the costs of reunification. Defense Secretary Scharping sticked with the relatively high number of aircraft and tried a budget trick to provide financing. Unfortunately, he didn't get through with it. When Italy withdrew from the program in 2001, a major reduction of the German order would have meant the end of the whole poject. This is still the base for the alternating numbers of German A400Ms.

Revelation wrote:

The bottom line is Germany has more than it needs and also has budget pressure, so they are looking for opportunities to, as you say, offload a lot of .

Firstly I don’t any US poster actually believes that, if it were true the first thing to cancel would be the recent C130Js.

Secondly the main issues the A400 has over the predecessor is the airframe can do a lot more, and the availability rate of them is higher. Need less of them to maintain operational requirements.

Noray wrote:

In the 1990s, Germany had planned to buy 75 Future Large Aircraft. In the late 1990s, the Antonov AN-70 was the German favourite. It was cheaper than the A400M, Germany would have been able to afford that many and had allocated the corresponding budget. Then came the British and French and persuaded Germany to buy the A400M. Germany was still suffering from the costs of reunification. Defense Secretary Scharping sticked with the relatively high number of aircraft and tried a budget trick to provide financing. Unfortunately, he didn't get through with it. When Italy withdrew from the program in 2001, a major reduction of the German order would have meant the end of the whole poject. This is still the base for the alternating numbers of German A400Ms.

It's interesting to note that at one point 75 aircraft were planned yet now we read that supporting 53 will require additional spend of EUR 500M because the existing infrastructure only supports 40. If they are unneeded, it would be cheaper to just park them in the Pyranees alongside the SQ A380s and wait for a buyer, and if one never does arrive you still have saved the EUR 500M.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The bottom line is Germany has more than it needs and also has budget pressure, so they are looking for opportunities to, as you say, offload a lot of .

Firstly I don’t any US poster actually believes that, if it were true the first thing to cancel would be the recent C130Js.

The idea that DE has wanted to offload A400Ms and has budget pressure is written in the international press. I'm not sure what kind of US stereotype you are projecting within your mind. Maybe it should just stay there.

zeke wrote:

Secondly the main issues the A400 has over the predecessor is the airframe can do a lot more, and the availability rate of them is higher. Need less of them to maintain operational requirements.

Quite true, which suggests they probably should not have signed up to buy so many.

I read on another forum where the poster suggested the UK may be thinking about buying more. The reason for this is the significantly higher than intended use of there C-17’s, to take the pressure of the fleet and reduce the hours used more A400’s are needed.

Kiwirob wrote:

I read on another forum where the poster suggested the UK may be thinking about buying more. The reason for this is the significantly higher than intended use of there C-17’s, to take the pressure of the fleet and reduce the hours used more A400’s are needed.

I hear the Germans have some used ones going cheap...

Revelation wrote:

It's interesting to note that at one point 75 aircraft were planned yet now we read that supporting 53 will require additional spend of EUR 500M because the existing infrastructure only supports 40. If they are unneeded, it would be cheaper to just park them in the Pyranees alongside the SQ A380s and wait for a buyer, and if one never does arrive you still have saved the EUR 500M.

Germany is outsourcing a large part of its military aerial transport to civil contractors as the Luftwaffe doesn't have enough transport capacity. One of the contractors, the Russian Volga-Dnepr, recently has announced its withdrawal from the SALIS cooperation. So how do you know that the additional machines are unneeded? The budget planners just didn't want to pay for them a few years ago. Of course it will cost additional money to open a second A400M base in addition to Wunstorf. It will cost even more money to train and sustain additional crews.

Now swimming in money.
-> https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-budget

But that may not carry over into the coming years.

Revelation wrote:

Noray wrote:

In the 1990s, Germany had planned to buy 75 Future Large Aircraft. In the late 1990s, the Antonov AN-70 was the German favourite. It was cheaper than the A400M, Germany would have been able to afford that many and had allocated the corresponding budget. Then came the British and French and persuaded Germany to buy the A400M. Germany was still suffering from the costs of reunification. Defense Secretary Scharping sticked with the relatively high number of aircraft and tried a budget trick to provide financing. Unfortunately, he didn't get through with it. When Italy withdrew from the program in 2001, a major reduction of the German order would have meant the end of the whole poject. This is still the base for the alternating numbers of German A400Ms.

It's interesting to note that at one point 75 aircraft were planned yet now we read that supporting 53 will require additional spend of EUR 500M because the existing infrastructure only supports 40. If they are unneeded,

The operational requirement and intend at project start said 73 aircraft, for two squadrons on two bases.
Due to budget pressure just one was brought up to snuff, that is where the infrastructure shortage comes from. In case Germany decides to take and operate more, a 2nd base would always happen.
Now SALIS is gone, can't buy AN124, C5 or C17, the A400M pretty much is the biggest game in town. Budget shortage ain't no more, and needing to defend NATO a much more real thing as in the past. We even had a, short lived, bringing the draft back discussion already.
Doesn't need much incentive from the Russian side to get things moving. And things are moving. When I was in driving school in the early 90's driving around military collums was an important bit to learn. I almost never encountered those in the wild. Now I see one about every other week. Stuff is already happening. Logistics are being improved, new commands established, staff numbers increased.... all the things you can do without drawing all too much public interest, and without it seeming aggressive. I think things are more tense than we are aware.

Best regards
Thomas

Yes, a commemoration of the battle of tannenburg is all that is left to the future German mobilization/militarization against the Russian or American threats. LOL.

texl1649 wrote:

Yes, a commemoration of the battle of tannenburg is all that is left to the future German mobilization/militarization against the Russian or American threats. LOL.

Battle of Tannenberg

Lots of US armor has been funneled into the small baltic states.
And they are not defensive.

I wouldn't be too surprised if these turn around one day and go against former "partners".

i..e the US is much more a danger to European peace than the Russian Federation.

WIederling wrote:

i..e the US is much more a danger to European peace than the Russian Federation.

If you're trying to keep your secret cell of the Red Army Faction secret, you're doing a bad job of it.

Maybe you didn't get the numbers from the shortwave correctly, but you're not supposed to go into open insurrection mode till October 25th.

WIederling wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Yes, a commemoration of the battle of tannenburg is all that is left to the future German mobilization/militarization against the Russian or American threats. LOL.

Battle of Tannenberg

Lots of US armor has been funneled into the small baltic states.
And they are not defensive.

I wouldn't be too surprised if these turn around one day and go against former "partners".

i..e the US is much more a danger to European peace than the Russian Federation.

"Lots of US armor" is a ridiculous overstatement. Those are just tripwire forces and turning them around and fighting against NATO would not make a difference whatsoever.

Their only purpose is to make sure Russia has to kill enough US troops to have the US public commit to article 5.

Best regards
Thomas

Low level pass a few weeks ago https://youtu.be/-iLlOcGvV_g

tommy1808 wrote:

"Lots of US armor" is a ridiculous overstatement.

Best regards
Thomas

not a small deployment ( and currently only accompanied by caretaker personnel).
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... to-europe/

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

"Lots of US armor" is a ridiculous overstatement.

Best regards
Thomas

not a small deployment ( and currently only accompanied by caretaker personnel).
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... to-europe/

LOL, did you actually read the article? The "not a small deployment" comprises 87 tanks, 140 Bradleys and just 18 SP artillery. It is a replacement for an existing unit, like for like, and hardly a force that can spread fear and chaos...

Ozair wrote:

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

"Lots of US armor" is a ridiculous overstatement.

Best regards
Thomas

not a small deployment ( and currently only accompanied by caretaker personnel).
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... to-europe/

LOL, did you actually read the article? The "not a small deployment" comprises 87 tanks, 140 Bradleys and just 18 SP artillery. It is a replacement for an existing unit, like for like, and hardly a force that can spread fear and chaos...

Those are only tripwire forces akin to the Berlin brigade. They can but up a real fight, but they can't win.

Best regards
Thomaa

Looks like the A400M may get a go in South Korea although the exchange won't increase production but come at the expense of Spanish aircraft.

I'm not sure if the article is correct though on its claims of the price, that the Spanish will sell the jets at 15% of the per unit price. Clearly the cost price isn't 27 million so there must be some error in the numbers.

South Korea and Spain seek deal to swap trainer jets for airlifters

South Korean and Spanish defense officials are to discuss a possible trade of trainer and transport aircraft, according to arms procurement officials and industry sources in the Asian nation.

The deal may involve about 50 basic and advanced trainer jets built by Korea Aerospace Industries, or KAI, and four to six Airbus A400M airlifters, they said.

“South Korea and Spain plan to hold a joint defense industry committee in Madrid this month to discuss bilateral issues,” said an official with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The swap deal is not an official agenda item on the table, but the sides are open to discussing it.”

The proposal was made by Spain during the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. last July, as the Spanish Air Force seeks to replace its older trainer fleet of Chilean ENAER T-35C Pillan jets, according to an industry source privy to the potential swap deal.

“Spain ordered 27 A400M transport aircraft from Airbus but has decided not to use 13 of them, so the Spanish defense authorities have got approval from Airbus to sell the surplus products to other countries,” the source said. “Spain wants to sell four to six A400Ms to South Korea, and it buys 34 KT-1 basic trainer aircraft and 20 more T-50 supersonic trainer jets for advanced pilot training if possible.”

If the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, he said, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.

The envisaged deal could be a breakthrough for KAI to sell more of its trainer aircraft after its recent defeat in a U.S. Air Force trainer competition.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11 ... irlifters/

Ozair wrote:

Looks like the A400M may get a go in South Korea although the exchange won't increase production but come at the expense of Spanish aircraft.

I'm not sure if the article is correct though on its claims of the price, that the Spanish will sell the jets at 15% of the per unit price. Clearly the cost price isn't 27 million so there must be some error in the numbers.

South Korea and Spain seek deal to swap trainer jets for airlifters

South Korean and Spanish defense officials are to discuss a possible trade of trainer and transport aircraft, according to arms procurement officials and industry sources in the Asian nation.

The deal may involve about 50 basic and advanced trainer jets built by Korea Aerospace Industries, or KAI, and four to six Airbus A400M airlifters, they said.

“South Korea and Spain plan to hold a joint defense industry committee in Madrid this month to discuss bilateral issues,” said an official with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The swap deal is not an official agenda item on the table, but the sides are open to discussing it.”

The proposal was made by Spain during the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. last July, as the Spanish Air Force seeks to replace its older trainer fleet of Chilean ENAER T-35C Pillan jets, according to an industry source privy to the potential swap deal.

“Spain ordered 27 A400M transport aircraft from Airbus but has decided not to use 13 of them, so the Spanish defense authorities have got approval from Airbus to sell the surplus products to other countries,” the source said. “Spain wants to sell four to six A400Ms to South Korea, and it buys 34 KT-1 basic trainer aircraft and 20 more T-50 supersonic trainer jets for advanced pilot training if possible.”

If the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, he said, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.

The envisaged deal could be a breakthrough for KAI to sell more of its trainer aircraft after its recent defeat in a U.S. Air Force trainer competition.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11 ... irlifters/

How dare you imply that defensenews is wrong?
Now, where do I get some of those $4 million A400s?

Nomadd wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Looks like the A400M may get a go in South Korea although the exchange won't increase production but come at the expense of Spanish aircraft.

I'm not sure if the article is correct though on its claims of the price, that the Spanish will sell the jets at 15% of the per unit price. Clearly the cost price isn't 27 million so there must be some error in the numbers.

South Korea and Spain seek deal to swap trainer jets for airlifters

South Korean and Spanish defense officials are to discuss a possible trade of trainer and transport aircraft, according to arms procurement officials and industry sources in the Asian nation.

The deal may involve about 50 basic and advanced trainer jets built by Korea Aerospace Industries, or KAI, and four to six Airbus A400M airlifters, they said.

“South Korea and Spain plan to hold a joint defense industry committee in Madrid this month to discuss bilateral issues,” said an official with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The swap deal is not an official agenda item on the table, but the sides are open to discussing it.”

The proposal was made by Spain during the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. last July, as the Spanish Air Force seeks to replace its older trainer fleet of Chilean ENAER T-35C Pillan jets, according to an industry source privy to the potential swap deal.

“Spain ordered 27 A400M transport aircraft from Airbus but has decided not to use 13 of them, so the Spanish defense authorities have got approval from Airbus to sell the surplus products to other countries,” the source said. “Spain wants to sell four to six A400Ms to South Korea, and it buys 34 KT-1 basic trainer aircraft and 20 more T-50 supersonic trainer jets for advanced pilot training if possible.”

If the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, he said, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.

The envisaged deal could be a breakthrough for KAI to sell more of its trainer aircraft after its recent defeat in a U.S. Air Force trainer competition.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11 ... irlifters/

How dare you imply that defensenews is wrong?
Now, where do I get some of those $4 million A400s?

from the article:
"overall swap value can be as high as $890m"
4 to 6 A400M on one side.
$890 / 6 ~= $148m

( I assume non US i.e. regular accounting and the overall value not being the sum of both sides

Ozair wrote:

I'm not sure if the article is correct though on its claims of the price, that the Spanish will sell the jets at 15% of the per unit price. Clearly the cost price isn't 27 million so there must be some error in the numbers.

The original source is an article in The Korea Times, which says:

The sources said Spain is willing to offer a 15 percent discount on the price of the A400M, which costs about 300 billion won for one plane.

So according to The Korea Times, the price for one A400M is 300 billion won (233 million Euro or 268 million US$), and Spain will offer it for 15 % less. Of course we don't know if 300 billion won is accurate and what is included in that number. Defensenews miscalculated the currency conversion and confused a 15 percent discount with an 85 percent discount.

Since the the A400M contract is inflation-linked, maybe 233 million Euro for an A400M shipped after 2025 isn't impossible at all?

Noray wrote:

So according to The Korea Times, the price for one A400M is 300 billion won (233 million Euro or 268 million US$), and Spain will offer it for 15 % less. Of course we don't know if 300 billion won is accurate and what is included in that number. Defensenews miscalculated the currency conversion and confused a 15 percent discount with an 85 percent discount.

Since the the A400M contract is inflation-linked, maybe 233 million Euro for an A400M shipped after 2025 isn't impossible at all?

Thanks, that seems a high but somewhat reasonable price range for the aircraft, especially if the arrangement is essentially a trade of airframes.

10,000 flight test hours recorded for the A400M with a few more still to come.

Looking Back On 10,000 Hours of A400M Flight Test

Airbus’ military flight test team has just passed a remarkable milestone in the lengthy campaign to qualify the full range of capabilities of the pioneering A400M airlifter

Just short of nine years after its 11 December 2009 first flight, the A400M has completed 10,000 hours of development flight testing. More than planned, but critical to developing the extraordinary combination of tactical and strategic capabilities that will see it define military transport for decades to come.

Not only has it been exhaustively tested to satisfy the demands of its eight launch nations, but in a world-first it was simultaneously certified as a civil aircraft.

Head of A400M flight test Eric Isorce, and Head of Military Aircraft Fernando Alonso, who was Head of Airbus Flight Operations at the time of the maiden flight, discuss the challenges of qualifying and certifying Airbus’ first large military transport.

These tests confirmed the A400M’s ability to take off and land on sand, grass and gravel runways or strips; they successfully airdropped multiple containers typically used in military and humanitarian operations; deployed paratroopers through fuselage side doors and from the rear cargo ramp; and simultaneously refuel two fighters or a large receiver aircraft such as another A400M.

For the in-flight refueling duties, testing also validated the ability to refuel six F-18 fighters during a typical deployment mission, transferring a total of 11.4 tonnes of fuel.

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

On the topic of testing, they are currently certifying the A400M to refuel the Eurofighter, at least the German ones. They already have their respective license to refuel but each specific donor - receiver pair needs to be certified too, apparently.

Speaking of A400M updates, here's one from Airbus's Q3 result of Oct 31:

On the A400M programme, Airbus is progressing on the military capabilities and with the delivery and retrofit plan. Airbus is delivering against the objectives set in February 2018 as part of the Declaration of Intent (DoI) framework which was agreed with OCCAR and the Nations, but progress to convert the DoI into a contract amendment is a bit slower than planned. Risks remain, in particular on the development of technical capabilities, securing sufficient exports on time, on aircraft operational reliability in particular with regard to engines, and on cost reductions as per the revised baseline.

Ref: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... sults.html

So the program is still running against the letter of intent rather than a signed deal. Apparently the deal includes some targets for export sales and cost reductions which are being identified as risks. It'll be interesting to see what the final deal includes, presuming we're allowed to get any details. So far all we know is it lets Airbus stretch out deliveries and defer certain features infinitely i.e. drop them. I guess it's all about sharing the pain, since Airbus has already written off more than EUR 8B on the program ( ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43069630 ).

20 flight test hours per week for 10 years for a plane in series production. No one wants to invest in capabilities with it’s flight hour costs at this point, it seems.

RAF are expanding operations.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/a400m-atlas-airdrops-load/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTY_x38Qxuo

Interesting and rather large and detailed article (full page) on the A400M in our newspaper today.
Interview with one Ludger Bette, Kommodore, Hohn.
It is now the best plane ever and gaining Luftwaffe capabilities certification left and right.

a glitch
( only dead tree at the moment, not available on the public shz.de website yet. )

I don’t think we can characterize it as the “best plane ever” unless someone steps up to buy some more. Airbus needs to stop hemorrhaging money on certifying additional capabilities that only cost them additional money to retrofit to earlier frames. For which they can’t even charge the original customers more money.

WIederling wrote:

Interesting and rather large and detailed article (full page) on the A400M in our newspaper today.
Interview with one Ludger Bette, Kommodore, Hohn.
It is now the best plane ever and gaining Luftwaffe capabilities certification left and right.

The main issue they still have, so I've heard, is poor availability. Perhaps Mr. Bette mentions that in the article? German A400Ms are ready only 25% of the time, 50% of the time they're in scheduled maintenance and 25% unscheduled. Compare that to Malaysia, who are supposedly reaching 90%+ availability. But Malaysia has been working 3 daily shifts when necessary (vs. 1 in Germany) and have one hangar per plane (vs. 6 hangars for 22 planes in Germany). Largest cause for maintenance seem to be the engines.

They also have problems with international cooperation. The exchange between operators seems to be poor, so an issue - or solution - discovered in one military would likely not be reported to the others in an effort to protect "important secrets".

GRIVely wrote:

I don’t think we can characterize it as the “best plane ever” unless someone steps up to buy some more. Airbus needs to stop hemorrhaging money on certifying additional capabilities that only cost them additional money to retrofit to earlier frames. For which they can’t even charge the original customers more money.

These capabilities are in the contracts and thus non-negotiable.

GRIVely wrote:

I don’t think we can characterize it as the “best plane ever” unless someone steps up to buy some more. Airbus needs to stop hemorrhaging money on certifying additional capabilities that only cost them additional money to retrofit to earlier frames. For which they can’t even charge the original customers more money.

humor, difficult concept. QED.

mxaxai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Interesting and rather large and detailed article (full page) on the A400M in our newspaper today.
Interview with one Ludger Bette, Kommodore, Hohn.
It is now the best plane ever and gaining Luftwaffe capabilities certification left and right.

The main issue they still have, so I've heard, is poor availability. Perhaps Mr. Bette mentions that in the article? German A400Ms are ready only 25% of the time, 50% of the time they're in scheduled maintenance and 25% unscheduled. Compare that to Malaysia, who are supposedly reaching 90%+ availability. But Malaysia has been working 3 daily shifts when necessary (vs. 1 in Germany) and have one hangar per plane (vs. 6 hangars for 22 planes in Germany). Largest cause for maintenance seem to be the engines.

They also have problems with international cooperation. The exchange between operators seems to be poor, so an issue - or solution - discovered in one military would likely not be reported to the others in an effort to protect "important secrets".

talk is about doubling flight hours per month.

(older) Interview with Kommodore Bette from end of April 2018 and reads positive too ( feed to google translate ):
https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschlan ... 46444.html

still waiting for the recent article to be available on shz.de.
What found my interest is the apparent turn about in media presentation and presentation by the Luftwaffe.
( Obviously a set of interviews with a nod from the Ministry of Defense and their boss Frau von der Lügen.)

WIederling wrote:

talk is about doubling flight hours per month.

(older) Interview with Kommodore Bette from end of April 2018 and reads positive too ( feed to google translate ):
https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschlan ... 46444.html

still waiting for the recent article to be available on shz.de.
What found my interest is the apparent turn about in media presentation and presentation by the Luftwaffe.
( Obviously a set of interviews with a nod from the Ministry of Defense and their boss Frau von der Lügen.)

It's not just in media. This is in line with what has been communicated to the engineers working on it (not public yet not confidential either). It's also similar to many other projects that worked just fine after all the initial bugs had been ironed out. Compare for example the massive problems of the early F-35 or F-22 and the very positive reporting recently.

My heads up was on the change in media representation.
Obviously projects don't do step changes put typically progress on a continuous path ( upwards ).

Ursula von der Leyen dominated the press with her offensive campaign "Airbus is shit" for quite some time.

Together with the A340 hickup on its recent flight the searchlight of dissatisfaction is now directed at UvL
activities. No longer does her heavy spending in the PR domain bear fruits.

Interesting change imho. A bit of breaking the "Transatlantiker" Spearhead.
( next turning point could well be AKK or Merz taking the CDU lead. )

Hi all

I have just read this thread from start to finish, very informative and colourful sometimes.

Well I like the A400M and I also like the C130 both have a role within there respective nation forces and pending one's own conops. if I remember correctly the UK only went with C17 under lease because A400M was only a paper airplane at the time, its only after they saw the potential they bought them


In NZ case A400M ticks all the boxes on paper for there own needs whilst also value adding to there most valued strategic partner (AU), we have to remember NZ will not need all the capability of A400M like AAR or a Battalion parachute drop, what NZ does need is tactical lift over strategic distance. Having the ability to quickly to move NZLAV/NH90 should be seen as secondary capability. They don't need it all the time but the need is still there you cant rely on RAAF/USAF or charter arrangements on time critical missions

With NZ having such a small foot print numbers matter Quantity has a Quality all on its own, me personally would like to see the both strategic lift and tactical lift rolled into one if Airbus can get the gremlins sorted I would like to see 7/8 A400M in service and have ANZ do a PPP with Boeing 737BBJ VIP aircraft freeing cash up front to get them over the line if possible...… but on the other hand by going the C130J frees up cash as well where they can infuse with the future JATF RNZAF is crying out for more rotary lift they have the bare minimum, They need more NH-90 as well as a heavy rotary lift capability like CH47F the last NZ earthquake showed they cant rely on STOL cant always get in and road access is not open, sealift is to slow but gives time to asses the situation to move supplies equipment to the best forward operating postion.

But getting back to the FAMC programme and the now programme status of each competing aircraft and if I had to make the decision I would go with C130J, wholly for the reason that it is a mature product and the governments desire of only 1-1 , NZ cannot afford a problem child with such a small fleet with no other alternatives compared to the RAAF that can make do with a bad situation (C17/C130/C27J) the other mitigating factor is the Euro haven't exactly covered themselves with glory in regards to parts and sustainment in the past. the trio of KC390/A400M/C2 are all to immature programs to risk anything but a proven capability.

just my 2c anyway

but from a story last month at APEC in Singapore, it most likely decided within the ANZUS alliance framework

https://pointofordernz.wordpress.com/20 ... /#more-929

Fortunately for the newbie Ardern, Foreign Minister Winston Peters hit his straps. He had constructive discussions with Pence and several senior US officials including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Singapore as he patiently rebuilds the US/NZ relationship, which has been underscored by the recent order for four P-8 maritime patrolling Poseidons while an order for five new C-103J Hercules is expected by the end of the year.

Have you seen this thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1351595 ? The pros and cons of the C-130J, C-2, KC-390 and A400M for New Zealand were discussed there.
However, I'd like to comment on a few of your statements:

A101 wrote:

In NZ case A400M ticks all the boxes on paper for there own needs whilst also value adding to there most valued strategic partner (AU), we have to remember NZ will not need all the capability of A400M like AAR or a Battalion parachute drop, what NZ does need is tactical lift over strategic distance.

While you may not need paratroopers, the A400M can precisely airdrop some heavy loads. It also showed in Indonesia that it can operate from runways after earthquakes, and deliver payloads too large or heavy for the C-130 (like bulldozers and trucks). NZ doesn't have heavy helicopters (yet) so this is probably the second best you can get. As you note, the C-2 & A400M can transport NZ's existing helicopters quickly to wherever they're needed too.

A101 wrote:

But getting back to the FAMC programme and the now programme status of each competing aircraft and if I had to make the decision I would go with C130J, wholly for the reason that it is a mature product and the governments desire of only 1-1 , NZ cannot afford a problem child with such a small fleet with no other alternatives compared to the RAAF that can make do with a bad situation (C17/C130/C27J) the other mitigating factor is the Euro haven't exactly covered themselves with glory in regards to parts and sustainment in the past. the trio of KC390/A400M/C2 are all to immature programs to risk anything but a proven capability.

Parts and sustainment is mostly up to the individual air force. If their maintenance department is run well, the parts will be there as needed. Airbus does all retrofits to newer equipment as needed by their own. Other Airbus programs like the C-295, A330MRTT and Eurofighter are already well sustained all over the globe. NZ would also have a partner nearby with Malaysia and possibly Indonesia.
Likewise, Embraer has lots of experience supporting its wordwide fleet. The partnership with Boeing for the KC-390 will only improve that. Both A400M and KC-390 are mature imo, although the most conservative choice is obviously the C-130.

A101 wrote:

In NZ case A400M ticks all the boxes on paper for there own needs whilst also value adding to there most valued strategic partner (AU), we have to remember NZ will not need all the capability of A400M like AAR or a Battalion parachute drop, what NZ does need is tactical lift over strategic distance.

The most important box for New Zealand the A400M doesn't tick. That box is value for money. It is probably the worst option in terms of value. The ultimate jack of all trades master of none.

You could measure value by payload weight over distance versus cost.

New Zealand has a very unique requirement list. Its isolated location means for a strategic airlifter it needs long legs, a minimum 7500km range to make it to Hawaii or Indonesia. The Kawasaki C-2 is the only strategic option here which has 20% greater range than the A400M. For example the C-2 could carry three times the payload to Hawaii compared to the A400M, 7T versus 21T.

KC-390 will probably be the best value single fleet option. 10 KC-390's can move the same payload weight of 7 A400M's but 10 KC-390's will definitely be much cheaper to purchase and operate than 7 A400M's. With a single stop in Darwin the KC-390 can transport 14T to anywhere in Asia.

New Zealand will also be very inclined to stick with aircraft used by the RAAF to save on maintenance. The RAAF have the C-27J, C-130J, C-17 and A330MRTT. If NZ had to pick only one of these then it hands down has to be the C-130J.

However if New Zealand decided on operating two aircraft types used by the RAAF the lowest price and probably the best value option would be a handful of C-27J's and a few A330 MRTTs. In the natural disaster role the C-27J can make it to all the islands, Fiji and easily make it to Australia. The A330MRTT's provides the cheapest strategic airlift and can make it to the USA and Asia comfortably. For instance a hypothetical disaster in Asia the C-27J's could ferry to the location with a single stop in Darwin. The A330MRTT's can directly take aid to a large airport and the C-27J's can then distribute locally.

Why would NZ need to operate excessively overseas? I'd wager their primary focus is on nearby islands and Australia, and their own country with frequent natural catastrophies etc.

[*]

AirlineCritic wrote:

Why would NZ need to operate excessively overseas? I'd wager their primary focus is on nearby islands and Australia, and their own country with frequent natural catastrophies etc.

The RNZAF also need to operate to Antarctica.

A101 wrote:

With NZ having such a small foot print numbers matter Quantity has a Quality all on its own, me personally would like to see the both strategic lift and tactical lift rolled into one if Airbus can get the gremlins sorted I would like to see 7/8 A400M in service and have ANZ do a PPP with Boeing 737BBJ VIP aircraft freeing cash up front to get them over the line if possible...… but on the other hand by going the C130J frees up cash as well where they can infuse with the future JATF RNZAF is crying out for more rotary lift they have the bare minimum, They need more NH-90 as well as a heavy rotary lift capability like CH47F the last NZ earthquake showed they cant rely on STOL cant always get in and road access is not open, sealift is to slow but gives time to asses the situation to move supplies equipment to the best forward operating postion.

NZ’s disaster operating plan at the moment is based around the projection of assistance from sea based assets which makes sense given the ability to move large amounts of stores from ship to shore. There is no need to transport LAVs by air anywhere and since NZ operated the LAV only thirteen have ever left the country.

A101 wrote:

But getting back to the FAMC programme and the now programme status of each competing aircraft and if I had to make the decision I would go with C130J, wholly for the reason that it is a mature product and the governments desire of only 1-1 , NZ cannot afford a problem child with such a small fleet with no other alternatives compared to the RAAF that can make do with a bad situation

As Kiwirob mentioned Antarctic operations are likely to be a big part of the requirement, I would say potentially more important than moving helicopters around the south pacific.

A101 wrote:

https://pointofordernz.wordpress.com/20 ... /#more-929

Fortunately for the newbie Ardern, Foreign Minister Winston Peters hit his straps. He had constructive discussions with Pence and several senior US officials including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Singapore as he patiently rebuilds the US/NZ relationship, which has been underscored by the recent order for four P-8 maritime patrolling Poseidons while an order for five new C-103J Hercules is expected by the end of the year.

A very interesting quote. I would actually be surprised if this occurred given the sole source nature of it but as NZ sole sourced the P-8 it is certainly possible. There would be some upset people within Airbus and Embraer if it were true.

mxaxai wrote:

NZ would also have a partner nearby with Malaysia and possibly Indonesia.

I just wanted to highlight this. Neither nation would be attractive for NZ to partner with, irrespective of operating the same aircraft. The nations have very difference philosophies and professionalism and I doubt they would have much in common.

mxaxai wrote:

Likewise, Embraer has lots of experience supporting its wordwide fleet. The partnership with Boeing for the KC-390 will only improve that. Both A400M and KC-390 are mature imo, although the most conservative choice is obviously the C-130.

Militaries value relationships with other militaries compared to the companies they acquire the aircraft from and in the context of the KC-390 the Brazilian Air Force isn’t a global player. I also wouldn’t consider the KC-390 as mature given it has yet to be delivered to its primary customer and no nation is operating the jet today.

Ozair wrote:

Well nearly new German airframes are a possibility but I would suggest NZ will be hesitant about taking early build A400Ms to ensure they don't burden themselves with non-standard or airframe unique maintenance going forward. They might also benefit from having Malaysia and Indonesia, if they ever sign, as other regional operators.

You had considered this yourself 5 months ago.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Likewise, Embraer has lots of experience supporting its wordwide fleet. The partnership with Boeing for the KC-390 will only improve that. Both A400M and KC-390 are mature imo, although the most conservative choice is obviously the C-130.

Militaries value relationships with other militaries compared to the companies they acquire the aircraft from and in the context of the KC-390 the Brazilian Air Force isn’t a global player. I also wouldn’t consider the KC-390 as mature given it has yet to be delivered to its primary customer and no nation is operating the jet today.

The KC-390 has been meeting all (or most?) of its targets recently and Embraer has decent experience with building jets. One of the largest hurdles for the A400M, the engines, are also standard civilian IAE V2500s on the KC-390.

Re your other point:
The only true gobal players today are the US, and to a lesser extent but increasingly China (who are not competing here). However, you would agree that military procurements are always connected to politics. The way stats are compared here often makes it seem as if a competitor lost only because it was less capable. The C-130J has...:
- the lowest maximum payload mass
- the lowest speed
- the second-lowest range (only the KC-390 has less)
- not the lowest price (the KC-390 is cheaper)
among the contenders. It cannot reach Antarctica without a point-of-no-return. It's sole bonus is that it needs the shortest runway. If it is chosen the decision is probably 70 % politics, 20 % commonality and 10 % actual unique capabilities. Of course the people at Embraer, Kawasaki & Airbus would be upset. But they're fighting uphill with governments that want the companies to make money yet don't support their export attempts at all.