The budget committee of the Bundestag lower house of parliament gave the green light for the 970 million euro procurement of six C-130 Hercules transport aircraft from U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, the source told Reuters.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-denma ... KKCN1M61K2

In another report, it was mentioned German air force had initially hoped to buy up to 12 frames and may follow up acquisition in future 2019-2021 budget years.

Wow! Finally! I somehow was always hoping to see a Luftwaffe Hercules. Where will they be based?

Aren´t they going to be jointly operated with the French Armée de l´Air and based in eastern France?
By the way, the posted reuters link is wrong.

propper link:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germa ... KKCN1M62BH

WIederling wrote:

propper link:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germa ... KKCN1M62BH

Hmm:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s armed forces will spend almost 970 million euros ($1.14 billion) buying six C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, which in contrast to the A400M from Airbus can land on smaller, more rocky landing strips, a parliamentary source said on Wednesday.

I guess the A400M does ok with wet grass strips and sandy beaches, less good with smaller, more rocky landing strips?

Money talks, says I.

steman wrote:

Aren´t they going to be jointly operated with the French Armée de l´Air and based in eastern France?

Yes:

The C-130 Hercules will stationed in Evreux in Normandy where France already operates the same type of aircraft.

I bet that will be a coveted assignment.

970 million euro for 6 ?

Sounds expensive. Is the C-130J really that expensive ?

That sounds about right. $160 million Euro each. The US government will be making a big profit on top.

The original request for approval was for 3 KC-130's and 3 normal C-130J for special forces use. They would have all the protection equipment. They arent vanilla aircraft.

The A400M costs around 200 million Euro each and they are built at a loss by comparison and can't refuel.

Mortyman wrote:

970 million euro for 6 ?

Sounds expensive. Is the C-130J really that expensive ?

It includes more than just the planes:

The package includes the procurement of spare parts, maintenance of the aircraft in the first three years and the initial training of technical and aviation personnel.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23446/ ... 14_Billion

Tugg

RJMAZ wrote:

That sounds about right. $160 million Euro each. The US government will be making a big profit on top.

The original request for approval was for 3 KC-130's and 3 normal C-130J for special forces use. They would have all the protection equipment. They arent vanilla aircraft.

The A400M costs around 200 million Euro each and they are built at a loss by comparison and can't refuel.

The A400M is a much bigger aircraft and it most certainly can refuel in air.

RJMAZ wrote:

That sounds about right. $160 million Euro each. The US government will be making a big profit on top.

The U.S. government isn't selling them.

Mortyman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

That sounds about right. $160 million Euro each. The US government will be making a big profit on top.

The original request for approval was for 3 KC-130's and 3 normal C-130J for special forces use. They would have all the protection equipment. They arent vanilla aircraft.

The A400M costs around 200 million Euro each and they are built at a loss by comparison and can't refuel.

The A400M is a much bigger aircraft and it most certainly can refuel in air.

I believe he is saying there is no active, well developed tanker version to refuel other aircraft as there is with the KC-130.

The A400M is almost there but there aren't enough of them to outfit specifically for tanker duty. So it can do it, but they need more in order to do so actively.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0m-443878/


Tugg

A400m tankers cant refuel helicopters, only fighters.

Nomadd wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

That sounds about right. $160 million Euro each. The US government will be making a big profit on top.

The U.S. government isn't selling them.

Yes but they get a cut of the money.

I can tell you that even with all that stuff taken into account they are paying a premium over what the US military pays for the same.

Mortyman wrote:

The A400M is a much bigger aircraft and it most certainly can refuel in air.

The A400M can't refuel helicopters. Testing produced very bad unexpected results. So now they need to purchase a subfleet of KC-130's to refuel helicopters..

So the point of the A400M was to cover the majority of transport missions with one aircraft. Obviously it will always be a compromise. The A400M cant land on a runway as short as the C-130J can or fly as far as the C-17 can.

The point was to save money by having a single fleet being cheaper than the C-17 and C-130J combo.

But they still needed a second aircraft anyway and the A400m costs so much that you could have just gone with the C-17 and C-130J combo.

RJMAZ wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

The A400M is a much bigger aircraft and it most certainly can refuel in air.

The A400M can't refuel helicopters. Testing produced very bad unexpected results. So now they need to purchase a subfleet of KC-130's to refuel helicopters..

So the point of the A400M was to cover the majority of transport missions with one aircraft. Obviously it will always be a compromise. The A400M cant land on a runway as short as the C-130J can or fly as far as the C-17 can.

The point was to save money by having a single fleet being cheaper than the C-17 and C-130J combo.

But they still needed a second aircraft anyway and the A400m costs so much that you could have just gone with the C-17 and C-130J combo.

Helicopter refueling is still coming. They're supposed to be testing a updated pod next year.

texl1649 wrote:

A400m tankers cant refuel helicopters, only fighters.

It is no hard "can't":
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oo-450430/

RJMAZ wrote:

So the point of the A400M was to cover the majority of transport missions with one aircraft. Obviously it will always be a compromise. The A400M cant land on a runway as short as the C-130J can or fly as far as the C-17 can.

The point was to save money by having a single fleet being cheaper than the C-17 and C-130J combo.

But they still needed a second aircraft anyway and the A400m costs so much that you could have just gone with the C-17 and C-130J combo.

I think we're clearly in the realm of "not a very good tactical airlifter, not a very good strategic airlifter" and now "not a very good helo refueller" and "not a very good spec ops plane" and "not a very good maritime patrol aircraft" too.

viewtopic.php?t=1027711&start=550 and onward still applies.

WIederling wrote:

It is no hard "can't":
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oo-450430/

It's been a "should" all along, yet we see FR and DE buying C130s so something rings hollow.

Your link can be read as "redesigned pod with skinnier hose and thus lower flow rate generates more bills for expensive wind tunnel time and expensive flight testing".

Revelation wrote:

Your link can be read as "redesigned pod with skinnier hose and thus lower flow rate generates more bills for expensive wind tunnel time and expensive flight testing".

Sarcasm is the new Black.

texl1649 wrote:

A400m tankers cant refuel helicopters, only fighters.

Problem is that Germany has no Helicopters that can be refueled in mid-air and the CH53 successor has just been postponed

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Your link can be read as "redesigned pod with skinnier hose and thus lower flow rate generates more bills for expensive wind tunnel time and expensive flight testing".

Sarcasm is the new Black.

I suppose, but it's not like the A400M program has profits it can apply to repeated reworking of inadequately designed features, and Airbus seems to resist the kind of deficit spending that we see by Boeing in its KC46 program.

Interestingly enough (or not) AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... itary-wins ) now has an article on how Boeing appears to be more than happy to take what appears to be a loss on T-X if you use normal defense procurement metrics, but suggests the buying power they have from the commercial side allows them to do far better than the normal defense procurement metrics.

Hopefully Airbus and other international aviation concerns end up on this new trajectory.