Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:07 pm

mxaxai wrote:
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.

I did but I consider partnering different to having operators of the same type in the region.

Would NZ, Malaysia and Indonesia have a common spares pool, a common training program, operating procedures, exchange postings? Doubtful but that is what I would expect from partners.

Having regional operators means asking one of them to borrow a part, having a yearly meeting to discuss how they both use the jet, perhaps even a biannual exercise.

mxaxai wrote:
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.

I still don’t see how you can call a jet that has yet to IOC with its primary customer mature, it doesn’t make logical sense.

mxaxai wrote:
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.

Looking at the specs is important but we also don’t have a requirement set from NZ to validate them against. hence we can only hypothesis on what we think NZ requires. The important point being that a lower capability aircraft, as the C-130J is compared to some of the other potential options, may be sufficient to meet the requirement set at the price point NZ can afford.

As an aside as posted in the other thread, the C-30J can reportedly do a zero point of no return from Christchurch,

Antarctic operations are crucial to New Zealand and the new model "Super Hercules" has the ability to get to the McMurdo Sound, for crew to assess landing conditions while overhead and if they are too bad return safely to Christchurch. The older model planes' point of safe return was much earlier in flight.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11932974

I have no idea of what payload that is measured with though so take it with a grain of salt.

Yes politics plays a factor in the selection but not a pivotal one. NZ is not beholden to the US for much and I don’t see political interests overly impacting the selection of a transport plane. The P-8 is a different case given the information and intelligence sharing agreements in place which the P-8 would directly contribute to.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:17 am

I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:54 am

At least this year Airbus Defence & Space achieved delivery objectives, 3 weeks before year end the last two copy for 2018, MSN82 and 84, have been delivered to the Spain and Germany. Batch5 certified during the year, and delivered on some of the last one (unsure which).
18 frames in 2018. 10 to Germany, 2 to Spain, 2 to Turkey, 2 to UK, 1 to France and MSN56 to Airbus Flight Test (EC-400).
A white tail remain : MSN75 still in storage paint and without engine.

Rate output should continue to drop next year. 15 deliveries expected.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
WIederling
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:16 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
MSN56 to Airbus Flight Test (EC-400).


What is that going to be used for? Any idea?

( list of prototypes and test specimen:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... Prototypen )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:41 pm

WIederling wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
MSN56 to Airbus Flight Test (EC-400).


What is that going to be used for? Any idea?

( list of prototypes and test specimen:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... Prototypen )


Lots of things changed since the prototypes and it would require an awful lot of changes to bring them at the needed level for certain testing. Without speaking of the engines that are not representative at all of the serie (even on MSN6).
During 2018 MSN56 did Airshows, Low Level Flight, Terrain Following campaign and various stuff testing in the cargo.

An overview of the current main role of each A/C in the FT fleet : MSN2 have been retired (but maintained airworthy, rumor says pending final destination decision), MSN4 dedicated to the tanker mode testing (although grounded for some time now, don't know why), MSN6 dedicated to aerial delivery and paratrooping, MSN56 "serial representative", airshows demonstrator and backup for the 2 others.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
WIederling
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:51 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
...................
MSN56 "serial representative", airshows demonstrator and backup for the 2 others.


Thank you.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:50 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
.. MSN4 dedicated to the tanker mode testing (although grounded for some time now, don't know why),..


Perhaps waiting on the the updated refuelling pods for helicopter trials next year?
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:49 pm

keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.


Well of course. I believe you have been consistent in that theory for 10 plus years on here with respect to civil or military sales that didn't go for Airbus. If NZ orders C-130's, I fully expect you will implicate Trump in the decision. I'm sure he's losing sleep about it daily.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:30 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
.. MSN4 dedicated to the tanker mode testing (although grounded for some time now, don't know why),..


Perhaps waiting on the the updated refuelling pods for helicopter trials next year?


I don't think that's a choice actually.
If they had choice I'm pretty sure they prefer fly and certify the cargo tanks plus the HDU (centerline, higher fuel flow IRC) rather than doing ground activities.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:03 pm

texl1649 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.


Well of course. I believe you have been consistent in that theory for 10 plus years on here with respect to civil or military sales that didn't go for Airbus. If NZ orders C-130's, I fully expect you will implicate Trump in the decision. I'm sure he's losing sleep about it daily.


What a BS :santahat: If NZ want a role in UN, relief missions etc. that would drive specifications. Did they look at C-17s in the past?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11768
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:24 pm

texl1649 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.


Well of course. I believe you have been consistent in that theory for 10 plus years on here with respect to civil or military sales that didn't go for Airbus. If NZ orders C-130's, I fully expect you will implicate Trump in the decision. I'm sure he's losing sleep about it daily.


If NZ orders the C130 it’s because the current Minister of Defense is a bit of twit more than anything else.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:33 pm

keesje wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.


Well of course. I believe you have been consistent in that theory for 10 plus years on here with respect to civil or military sales that didn't go for Airbus. If NZ orders C-130's, I fully expect you will implicate Trump in the decision. I'm sure he's losing sleep about it daily.


What a BS :santahat: If NZ want a role in UN, relief missions etc. that would drive specifications. Did they look at C-17s in the past?


There has been no official interest in the C-17 from New Zealand although there was talk a few years ago when the C-130/757 replacement talk began, http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/1 ... quisition/

But to link the acquisition by New Zealand of the A400M because of UN work and international participation is flawed. NZ has a strong history of participating in UN military actions and has done so for many years without large transport aircraft. Its largest deployment was to East Timor which was next door and subsequent work has been to other Pacific island nations. Those have highlighted there is no need to operate a larger aircraft than current given the proximity of the work to their home country. NZ don’t expect to do UN work in Eastern Europe or Africa, they expect to be a reliable partner for the South Pacific and do military intervention/humanitarian work in their region.

NZ did operate in a very quiet and out of the way area of Afghanistan and used their C-130 aircraft there but NZ, and their Defence Force, do not see NZ participation in UN operations requiring large transport aircraft. They have allied partners and civilian transport, on which other than US aircraft the UN moves most of its equipment, so there is no need to maintain that capability for that small niche mission set.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:07 pm

keesje wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.


Well of course. I believe you have been consistent in that theory for 10 plus years on here with respect to civil or military sales that didn't go for Airbus. If NZ orders C-130's, I fully expect you will implicate Trump in the decision. I'm sure he's losing sleep about it daily.


What a BS :santahat: If NZ want a role in UN, relief missions etc. that would drive specifications. Did they look at C-17s in the past?


I'll try not to personalize this further, sorry. What percent of relief missions, in the vicinity of NZ, do you believe have been flown by A400M's over the past 10 years? The next 10 years? I am not sure what the C-17 reference is to, but I would bet more relief efforts within 2,000 miles of NZ have been flown by C-17's than A400M's. What is the implication about the UN? Would the UN cut them out of something because they don't have A400M's? Hahaha.
 
A101
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:10 am

mxaxai wrote:
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:

Sorry for the delayed response just busy busy busy


mxaxai wrote:
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.


Whilst NZ does have a limited Paratrooper requirement its only the specials which would conduct these, the RAF is keeping a limited number of C130's to fulfil the role as they deem A400M to large. Regarding the precision airdrop capability wont be dropping oversize loads or plant as such RNZE use the High Mobility Engineer Excavator majority of the time which is transportable via C130J


mxaxai wrote:
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.


Unfortunately no the ADF/NZDF and a number of countries that bought rotary aircraft NH-90/Tiger had and do still have issues in sustainment, its not a matter of not order parts it getting the parts or having to send parts to Europe for refurbishment
 
A101
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:32 am

Ozair wrote:
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.


Agree the majority of movement will be via sealift, but what we have seen is that pending the circumstances NZLAV might have no other option to move vis airlift, NZLAV movement was via Qantas 747 to the sand pit, so a small requirement is there


Ozair wrote:
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.


Antarctica ops play a large role for reoccurring operations, but its the timely movement of stores and equipment that joe public see in HADR operations, one of the requirements of NH-90 was to be transportable by C130, it can be done but needs two C130 to do it for the amount of disassembly required, prior to the purchase of NH-90 it was a regular occurrence for C130 to move UH-1 Iroquois throughout the pacific nations for exercise and assistance missions


Ozair wrote:
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.


Well time will tell
 
WIederling
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:42 am

texl1649 wrote:
What percent of relief missions, in the vicinity of NZ, do you believe have been flown by A400M's over the past 10 years? The next 10 years? I am not sure what the C-17 reference is to, but I would bet more relief efforts within 2,000 miles of NZ have been flown by C-17's than A400M's. What is the implication about the UN? Would the UN cut them out of something because they don't have A400M's? Hahaha.


This is a rather unsuitable statement.
USE cases are invariably overlayed by what is available.
( But you wrongly try to create a statement of preferability from this.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:28 am

keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.

Even if New Zealand wanted to do more international work they still wouldn't order the A400M.

The C-2 carries the same payload 20% further, flies 15% faster and costs much less to buy and operate.

The C-2 is ice and snow rated and can definitely do Antarctic operations. The C-2 is less than half the weight with similar pavement loading of the C-17 which often lands in Antarctica. The reason why the C-2 can't land on dirt runways like the KC-390 is because they uses conventional airliner thrust reversers that will blow dirt/sand into the air intake. The C-17 has unique thrust reversers that blow up and forward. On Ice the C-2 can use its thrust reversers.

The C-2 could carry more than twice the payload of the A400M to Antarctica if you required the aircraft to have no point of no return. This means when you reach the runway in Antarctica if it was damaged or extreme weather appeared at the last minute the aircraft has enough fuel to return back to New Zealand.

The A400M has one very big advantage in that it can land very heavy loads into dirt runways. But this capability is at the detriment to speed, weight, range and cost. New Zealand would never need to land an armoured vehicle into a desert so the A400M is the worst option for them.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:08 pm

keesje wrote:
I think a C130J vs A400M selection would be reflection of the NZ's international ambitions / role and political willingness to equip for that.


Why would NZ want to have international ambitions further than what is their local sphere in the South Pacific ? The whole nation is geared towards their local environment and they go above and beyond when they commit troops and resources to anything outside the region. It is a small country, with moderate needs and capabilities, the most demanding of which is the Antarctica mission, if the C-130J can fulfill that requirement, it is going to be the most cost effective acquisition for the their needs. If they really need something bigger for a particular mission, they'll charter something, or get the RAAF to help out.

New Zealand's role is the South Pacific nations and their home needs, they are not going to commit airlift capable to anything outside the region, they don't need too and frankly would probably never be asked to, unless they have troops on the ground involved. In reality, Australia and New Zealand both probably commit beyond our means, though the RAAF would argue that point, they've gotten C-17's, Tankers and AEW aircraft which would probably still be arguing in parliament over if it wasn't for our foreign conflict commitments.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:18 pm

Regarding New Zealand selection, every operator of the A400M also have other transport aircraft.

France and Spain both have the smaller CN235/295.
U.K has C-130J and C-17
France and the U.K have the A330MRTT
Germany and the U.K have heavy lift helicopters.

This allows the full spectrum of transport needs to be covered from big to small and short to long range. New Zealand doesn't have such luxury to operate multiple types as they only have five C-130H and two 757 for transport. The 757 actually flies to Antarctica regularly. So a total of seven transport aircraft.

Selecting an aircraft that is too big (A400M, C-2) mean it is too costly to use on smaller jobs. A smaller second aircraft type or large helicopter is then required. If you go with a second smaller tactical airlifter type then the austere perfoemance of the A400M is no longer required making the C-2 a clear winner.

For New Zealand the C-130J sits in the sweet spot. It is small and cheap enough that it is probably not worth operating a second smaller transport. It is the just big enough to do the longer range flights. The C-130J is really the only option if you have to select one aircraft.

Personally I think New Zealand could squeeze for two aircraft types. The C-2 and C-27J would make the ultimate strategic/tactical combination. On the small and short flights the C-27J will actually save money over the C-130J. If New Zealand had a budget for seven C-130J's then for the same price they could buy two C-2's and four C-27J's. One less aircraft but overall much more versatile. The pair of C-2's could take more payload to Antarctica than all seven C-130J's combined. The C-27J can still reach eastern Australia with a decent payload.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The C-2 could carry more than twice the payload of the A400M to Antarctica if you required the aircraft to have no point of no return. This means when you reach the runway in Antarctica if it was damaged or extreme weather appeared at the last minute the aircraft has enough fuel to return back to New Zealand.


Interesting. Would you be so kind to provide the payload-range you are considering for the C-2 ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:39 pm

WIederling wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
What percent of relief missions, in the vicinity of NZ, do you believe have been flown by A400M's over the past 10 years? The next 10 years? I am not sure what the C-17 reference is to, but I would bet more relief efforts within 2,000 miles of NZ have been flown by C-17's than A400M's. What is the implication about the UN? Would the UN cut them out of something because they don't have A400M's? Hahaha.


This is a rather unsuitable statement.
USE cases are invariably overlayed by what is available.
( But you wrongly try to create a statement of preferability from this.)


Oh, ok. Was not interoperability with international missions described by the post I responded to? Is the A400 likely to see more interoperability than....what for NZ? If they're not available today, or used recently, or on order, what is the use case interoperability argument for the A400M? That Thailand is going to order a dozen frames?

IL-96's will fly as many relief missions in the general vicinity as NZ as A400M's for the next 50 years, and also until the sun burns out.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:52 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
Interesting. Would you be so kind to provide the payload-range you are considering for the C-2 ?

A400M payload range
Ferry - 4698nm
10T - 4350nm
20T - 3450nm
30T - 2450nm
37T - 1782nm

C-2 payload range
Ferry - 5300nm
10T - 5000nm
20T - 4100nm
30T - 3070nm
36T - 2430nm

The A400M is much heavier empty yet both have the same maximum takeoff weight. So once you add payload the C-2 has 30-40% more fuel. That Austere capability and self defence systems add weight.

A retuen flight from New Zealand to Antarctica is 4300nm, so C-2 can carry twice the payload with the same risk.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/65543703/null

This near disaster will be fresh in the minds of New Zealand.

Range from shortest to longest. There is a range gap of more than 10% between each model:
C-295, C-27J, KC-390, C-130J, A400M, C-2, C-17.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:51 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Interesting. Would you be so kind to provide the payload-range you are considering for the C-2 ?

A400M payload range
Ferry - 4698nm
10T - 4350nm
20T - 3450nm
30T - 2450nm
37T - 1782nm

C-2 payload range
Ferry - 5300nm
10T - 5000nm
20T - 4100nm
30T - 3070nm
36T - 2430nm

The A400M is much heavier empty yet both have the same maximum takeoff weight. So once you add payload the C-2 has 30-40% more fuel. That Austere capability and self defence systems add weight.

A retuen flight from New Zealand to Antarctica is 4300nm, so C-2 can carry twice the payload with the same risk.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/65543703/null

This near disaster will be fresh in the minds of New Zealand.

Range from shortest to longest. There is a range gap of more than 10% between each model:
C-295, C-27J, KC-390, C-130J, A400M, C-2, C-17.


Doesn't really matter if theres an RAAF or other Refueller near by.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:47 am

Slug71 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Interesting. Would you be so kind to provide the payload-range you are considering for the C-2 ?

A400M payload range
Ferry - 4698nm
10T - 4350nm
20T - 3450nm
30T - 2450nm
37T - 1782nm

C-2 payload range
Ferry - 5300nm
10T - 5000nm
20T - 4100nm
30T - 3070nm
36T - 2430nm

The A400M is much heavier empty yet both have the same maximum takeoff weight. So once you add payload the C-2 has 30-40% more fuel. That Austere capability and self defence systems add weight.

A retuen flight from New Zealand to Antarctica is 4300nm, so C-2 can carry twice the payload with the same risk.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/65543703/null

This near disaster will be fresh in the minds of New Zealand.

Range from shortest to longest. There is a range gap of more than 10% between each model:
C-295, C-27J, KC-390, C-130J, A400M, C-2, C-17.


Doesn't really matter if theres an RAAF or other Refueller near by.

And the frequency of that? Highly doubtful and as already discussed in the other thread the theory of planning for refuelling Antarctic missions is flawed.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:03 am

Slug71 wrote:
Doesn't really matter if theres an RAAF or other Refueller near by.

Are you are suggesting the RAAF have an A330MRTT in the air for every Antarctic flight? Crazy stuff!

The RAAF MRTT's are based in Amberly Queensland. Even if they took off within 15 minutes of an aborted landing in Antarctica it would not reach the aircraft in time.

Flight planning to Antarctica is all about balancing risk. You trade payload for a better point of no return. The closer the point of no return is to Antarctica the less time there is for the weather to turn bad.

Flying a fully loaded C-130J would mean you have 3 hours for the weather to change once you pass the point of no return. Very dangerous indeed. Flying the C-130J empty there is no point of no return as it can make it to Antarctica and back without refueling. Every ton of payload you add, the risk increases as the give more time for the weather to turn bad.

The A400M would be a vast improvement in terms of risk. With the max payload of the C-130J the A400M would have a point of return of around 30 minutes from Antarctica. The weather changing that rapidly in 30 minutes is unlikely so it would be low risk.

The C-2 could carry the C-130J payload with no point of no return. It could carry 10T more payload than the A400M while maintaining the same 30 minute point of no return.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:59 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Interesting. Would you be so kind to provide the payload-range you are considering for the C-2 ?

A400M payload range
Ferry - 4698nm
10T - 4350nm
20T - 3450nm
30T - 2450nm
37T - 1782nm

C-2 payload range
Ferry - 5300nm
10T - 5000nm
20T - 4100nm
30T - 3070nm
36T - 2430nm

The A400M is much heavier empty yet both have the same maximum takeoff weight. So once you add payload the C-2 has 30-40% more fuel. That Austere capability and self defence systems add weight.

A retuen flight from New Zealand to Antarctica is 4300nm, so C-2 can carry twice the payload with the same risk.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/65543703/null

This near disaster will be fresh in the minds of New Zealand.

Range from shortest to longest. There is a range gap of more than 10% between each model:
C-295, C-27J, KC-390, C-130J, A400M, C-2, C-17.


Thanks for the explanation. You originally said "more than twice" which is wrong as even at 4300nm can carry 10t, where the C-2 can't carry 20t. "Almost" twice would suit better IMO.

I won't challenge the 4300nm claim since I don't know at all the environment. But interestingly that's right at the edge of A400M useful envelope, and not that far of C-2s too. For all shorter mission the difference of payload is 5t max. And C-2 can't do much longer mission than the 4300nm anyway.

Airbus Defence & Space being busy with delivering aircraft with newer capabilities haven't started any significant weight reduction program on A400M. Do that, plus remove plug&fly options, I'm pretty sure they could save a nice amount of weight from the frame without too much effort if a sale campaign requires it.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1589
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
New Zealand would never need to land an armoured vehicle into a desert....

But maybe at one of the landing strips shown here:
http://www.westaucklandairport.co.nz/airfields.shtml
?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:29 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You originally said "more than twice" which is wrong as even at 4300nm can carry 10t, where the C-2 can't carry 20t. "Almost" twice would suit better IMO.

I won't challenge the 4300nm claim since I don't know at all the environment. But interestingly that's right at the edge of A400M useful envelope, and not that far of C-2s too. For all shorter mission the difference of payload is 5t max. And C-2 can't do much longer mission than the 4300nm anyway.

You forgot about the cruising speed difference. The C-2 can fly 15% faster. The New Zealand Air Force might be happy with a point of no return that was 30 minutes from Antarctica. The C-2 can then fly 15% further within that 30 minutes. The C-2 can then be loaded with more payload so that its point of no return is 15% further from the destination.

"Almost twice" becomes "more than twice" once you take this into account.

Grizzly410 wrote:
Airbus Defence & Space being busy with delivering aircraft with newer capabilities haven't started any significant weight reduction program on A400M. Do that, plus remove plug&fly options, I'm pretty sure they could save a nice amount of weight from the frame without too much effort if a sale campaign requires it.
A maximum takeoff weight increase would also work on the A400M. Maybe with a reduced G limit at the higher weights. Even a modest 5T boost would have it equalling the payload range of the C-2. The A400M even at this higher takeoff weight would probably still operate from a shorter runway than the C-2.

The C-130J, C-2 and C-17 all have an empty weight that is less than half of the maximum takeoff weight. The A400M empty weight is much more than half, from this measurement it is overweight.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Doesn't really matter if theres an RAAF or other Refueller near by.

Are you are suggesting the RAAF have an A330MRTT in the air for every Antarctic flight? Crazy stuff!

The RAAF MRTT's are based in Amberly Queensland. Even if they took off within 15 minutes of an aborted landing in Antarctica it would not reach the aircraft in time.

Flight planning to Antarctica is all about balancing risk. You trade payload for a better point of no return. The closer the point of no return is to Antarctica the less time there is for the weather to turn bad.

Flying a fully loaded C-130J would mean you have 3 hours for the weather to change once you pass the point of no return. Very dangerous indeed. Flying the C-130J empty there is no point of no return as it can make it to Antarctica and back without refueling. Every ton of payload you add, the risk increases as the give more time for the weather to turn bad.

The A400M would be a vast improvement in terms of risk. With the max payload of the C-130J the A400M would have a point of return of around 30 minutes from Antarctica. The weather changing that rapidly in 30 minutes is unlikely so it would be low risk.

The C-2 could carry the C-130J payload with no point of no return. It could carry 10T more payload than the A400M while maintaining the same 30 minute point of no return.


I never meant to imply that this would be done for every flight.
Rather specialized missions where the extra payload is needed.

I would think having 4 engines on these kinds of trips would also be more preferable than having 2?

How often do RNZAF aircraft make trips to Antarctica?
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:03 am

"UK continues tactical development of A400M with further beach trials"

https://www.janes.com/article/85157/uk- ... ach-trials
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:40 am

Slug71 wrote:
I never meant to imply that this would be done for every flight.
Rather specialized missions where the extra payload is needed.

I would think having 4 engines on these kinds of trips would also be more preferable than having 2?

How often do RNZAF aircraft make trips to Antarctica?

Engine out over water is the least of your concern on this route so 2 engines are fine. The New Zealand 757's were flying back and forth all summer.

There are over a 100 flights a year from New Zealand to Antarctica. But since they nearly lost a 757 they have reviewed their practices and do only 6 C-130 flights and 4 757 flights. The bulk of the work is now done by USAF C-17's.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:45 am

We have to wait until the NZ government releases an RFP with the requirements before we can really properly guess. Right now all the options have benefits and costs. If top capability is decided to be most important then the A400M is in with a solid chance. If cost is any sort of requirement then it will have the most trouble. And for a nation the size and GDP of NZ, cost is likely to be a measurement. If the German government want to flog off some cheap, barely used, A400Ms I'm sure the NZ government will look at it.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3221
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:49 am

Slug71 wrote:
I never meant to imply that this would be done for every flight.
Rather specialized missions where the extra payload is needed.

From an article published last year the number of NZ staff and cargo hauled isn’t huge.
The NZDF flew 260 scientists and support staff and 83 tonnes of vital supplies to Antarctica during the 2016-17 summer season. On average, its yearly airlift missions to Antarctica ferry about 320 passengers and 40 tonnes of freight.

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-relea ... ission.htm

Obviously the US flies in significant numbers of staff and cargo every year as well with the new runway capable of taking up to approx 60 wheeled landings a year.

Slug71 wrote:
I would think having 4 engines on these kinds of trips would also be more preferable than having 2?

No difference, NZDF has been flying the B757 down there for years. Skytraders also fly A319s down there from Hobart.
http://skytraders.com.au/about/#AntarcticLink

Slug71 wrote:
How often do RNZAF aircraft make trips to Antarctica?

From an article last year.
The NZDF will fly 11 strategic airlift flights this summer – five Boeing 757 flights and six C-130 Hercules flights – to bring scientists and equipment needed to support New Zealand and United States research programmes on the continent, Lieutenant Commander Hickey said.

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-relea ... ission.htm

Noting Australia also recently built the first paved runway in Antarctica which is still a far distance from McMurdo, approx. 2700kms and closer than Christchurch, but could possibly provide an alternate for Antarctic flights and will operate essentially year round weather permitting.
“The new runway will complement Australia’s existing summer-only ice runway at Wilkins Aerodrome, and will provide more reliable access to Antarctica throughout the year, improving our ability to conduct year-round, world-class scientific research and respond to emergencies.”

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... arctica-2/
 
A101
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:06 pm

if you look at Antarctica as the whole rational of RNZAF FAMC lift then the RNZAF has lost, its only one mission that it has to compete with its only the most predominate because of green ideology, but to pacify government coalitions to form government these days they need to dwell on green ideology just look at the response from the greens in regards to the P8 purchase

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... the-option

What is the cost implications of KC130J with Harvest Hawk and a A400M, RNZAF needs resource that can cover a whole range of roles
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:20 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You originally said "more than twice" which is wrong as even at 4300nm can carry 10t, where the C-2 can't carry 20t. "Almost" twice would suit better IMO.

I won't challenge the 4300nm claim since I don't know at all the environment. But interestingly that's right at the edge of A400M useful envelope, and not that far of C-2s too. For all shorter mission the difference of payload is 5t max. And C-2 can't do much longer mission than the 4300nm anyway.

You forgot about the cruising speed difference. The C-2 can fly 15% faster. The New Zealand Air Force might be happy with a point of no return that was 30 minutes from Antarctica. The C-2 can then fly 15% further within that 30 minutes. The C-2 can then be loaded with more payload so that its point of no return is 15% further from the destination.

"Almost twice" becomes "more than twice" once you take this into account.

Grizzly410 wrote:
Airbus Defence & Space being busy with delivering aircraft with newer capabilities haven't started any significant weight reduction program on A400M. Do that, plus remove plug&fly options, I'm pretty sure they could save a nice amount of weight from the frame without too much effort if a sale campaign requires it.
A maximum takeoff weight increase would also work on the A400M. Maybe with a reduced G limit at the higher weights. Even a modest 5T boost would have it equalling the payload range of the C-2. The A400M even at this higher takeoff weight would probably still operate from a shorter runway than the C-2.

The C-130J, C-2 and C-17 all have an empty weight that is less than half of the maximum takeoff weight. The A400M empty weight is much more than half, from this measurement it is overweight.


The C2 can't do soft / unprepared runways/strips. Ignore that & the world looks different. https://youtu.be/wIxy6Gt3QUA The New zealand Air Force needs that capability. http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/what-we-do/default.htm
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:51 pm

If I were forced to put money down I'd say for NZ the odds are in 1; Embraer, 2; C-2, 3; C-130, 4; A400M winning. I don't think a split buy happens, fleet is too small. Again, we're not talking about needing to land on gravel strips, which is a useless advantage for any offering here.
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:02 pm

texl1649 wrote:
If I were forced to put money down I'd say for NZ the odds are in 1; Embraer, 2; C-2, 3; C-130, 4; A400M winning. I don't think a split buy happens, fleet is too small. Again, we're not talking about needing to land on gravel strips, which is a useless advantage for any offering here.

Given this is the A400M thread, the RNZAF talk, while interesting, is drifting a bit.
The RFP is not out yet, so no indicator what this govt is looking for (and politics will be a big part with the coalition; the Greens seemed to lose it over the P-8 order without presenting an alternative).

I would expect the rough field requirement to be maintained. Operations from unsealed strips are part of the emergency relief capability, which forms an important part of what the RNZAF does. NZ may not need to
RJMAZ wrote:
land an armoured vehicle into a desert

but that doesn't mean the ability to land on gravel is not needed for what it does do. Reduces the likelihood of a C-2 order.

Range is important for the Antarctic ops. Advantage A400M (and C-2). But this is seasonal work, so is the aircraft too big for the regular training and islands flights (not to mention the current facilities...)? The RNZAF has five H-Hercs and two 757s as its entire fixed-wing transport fleet, with four King Airs for really light stuff and training. There were 10 Andovers until the late 90s which could handle the smaller loads, domestic and island training, which would have allowed for a dedicated large platform if they were replaced. But now the Hercs have to handle all load sizes and flight durations. Which requirement will have more weight when push comes to shove: Antarctica without a point of no return, or the more regular ops? We'll just have to wait and see. Mention of the RAAF A330s or tanker Hercs/A400M/KC-390 is unlikely, as the RNZAF has not maintained this capability since the Skyhawks left.

Lastly, NZ is more likely to be conservative. Having only five aircraft and a limited budget means it's unlikely to go for something without an absolutely proven record and established support. That favours the J-Herc.
Ideal world: the RNZAF would have some C-27Js/C295s and then the larger work could have a small fleet of A400M/C-2. More likely, the J-Herc will come out as the least-worst fit, with the lower cost of the KC-390 putting the A400M in third. But this is all speculation until some firm requirements come out.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:17 pm

keesje wrote:
The C2 can't do soft / unprepared runways/strips. Ignore that & the world looks different. https://youtu.be/wIxy6Gt3QUA The New zealand Air Force needs that capability. http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/what-we-do/default.htm

Can you stop reporting posts that disagree with you. I have seen so many posts from other members disappear during an argument with you.

You need to be held accountable when you provide incorrect or low quality sources.

That link you just posted has nothing about New Zealands need for soft / unprepared runway strips. It does mention Antarctica operations which the C-2 can do. Members will see that link and assume it is a source backing up what you are saying.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:41 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
The C2 can't do soft / unprepared runways/strips. Ignore that & the world looks different. https://youtu.be/wIxy6Gt3QUA The New zealand Air Force needs that capability. http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/what-we-do/default.htm

Can you stop reporting posts that disagree with you. I have seen so many posts from other members disappear during an argument with you.

You need to be held accountable when you provide incorrect or low quality sources.

That link you just posted has nothing about New Zealands need for soft / unprepared runway strips. It does mention Antarctica operations which the C-2 can do. Members will see that link and assume it is a source backing up what you are saying.


What are talking about? They do dirt strips in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Australians. Are they planning to give up these and regional relief missions?

The writer of this article doesn't see the C-2 as an option based on costs and capability. http://www.defsecmedia.co.nz/defence/march-2017-airlift-options/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:03 am

keesje wrote:
What are talking about? They do dirt strips in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Australians. Are they planning to give up these and regional relief missions?

New Zealand has never had troops at remote outposts in Afghanistan nor have their aircraft supported foreign troops at remote outposts. Their C-130H's have only operated into and inbetween fairly major Bagram, Banyam, Kabul, Khandahar, Tarinkot Airports.

All of these airports are asphalt. It is highly likely and actually quite common to restrict aircraft to asphalt to reduce wear and tear and to save on maintenance.

For regional relief, even the small islands usually have a paved 800m runway for tourism.

New Zealand has no requirement for dirt or gravel. You can view the white paper in one of the links you posted. This gives the C-2 a big advantage over the A400M and the KC-390 a big advantage over the C-130J.

New Zealand operates more like a civilian freight company which is why they use 757's in the freight role. It wont pay a big premium for niche dirt capability that won't get used.
 
A101
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:56 am

RJMAZ wrote:


New Zealand has no requirement for dirt or gravel. You can view the white paper in one of the links you posted. This gives the C-2 a big advantage over the A400M and the KC-390 a big advantage over the C-130J.




I think you need to think again

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pd ... afn148.pdf


A significant chapter of rNzAf and our squadron history came to a close on 10 April 2013—the end of rNzAf c-130 operations in bamiyan, Afghanistan. the squadron has been operating in support of the NzPrt in bamiyan since April 2004, regularly conducting resupply missions into the small dirt strip nestled in a valley in the western Hindu Kush range


 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:18 am

A101 wrote:


Someone might want to update the Wikipedia page for Bamyam airport as it says asphalt.
Direction 07/25
Length 2,200m
Surface Asphalt
 
Noray
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:11 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
A101 wrote:


Someone might want to update the Wikipedia page for Bamyam airport as it says asphalt.
Direction 07/25
Length 2,200m
Surface Asphalt

Google Earth has satellite imagery from 2004 and shows a dirt strip. Newer images with an asphalt runway can be found at Yandex.ru.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:54 pm

Noray wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
A101 wrote:


Someone might want to update the Wikipedia page for Bamyam airport as it says asphalt.
Direction 07/25
Length 2,200m
Surface Asphalt

Google Earth has satellite imagery from 2004 and shows a dirt strip. Newer images with an asphalt runway can be found at Yandex.ru.


While the old airstrip wasn't sealed, you hardly have called that soft. It looks like it is constantly prepared and looked more like dusty concrete. If anything, that article just further highlighted what an awesome aircraft the C-130 is and the "J" model would have been even better suited for that deployment.
 
WIederling
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:26 pm

"If anything, that article just further highlighted what an awesome aircraft the C-130 is .."

On occasion I have to ask what is so goddam awesome about a machine designed for flying at a time
where this was a long mastered capability to actually fly?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:10 pm

That's a very interesting discussion, however now it's really focused on NZ needs rather than A400M updates.
A new topic or following one would suit better
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1351595&start=50
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:08 pm

WIederling wrote:
"If anything, that article just further highlighted what an awesome aircraft the C-130 is .."

On occasion I have to ask what is so goddam awesome about a machine designed for flying at a time
where this was a long mastered capability to actually fly?


The C-130 is a remarkable aircraft. I don't think anyone here would disagree. I hope the A400M will age the same way.
I think the C-130 and A400M can coexist nicely.
 
Noray
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:50 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
MSN56 to Airbus Flight Test (EC-400).


What is that going to be used for? Any idea?

( list of prototypes and test specimen:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... Prototypen )


Lots of things changed since the prototypes and it would require an awful lot of changes to bring them at the needed level for certain testing. Without speaking of the engines that are not representative at all of the serie (even on MSN6).
During 2018 MSN56 did Airshows, Low Level Flight, Terrain Following campaign and various stuff testing in the cargo.

An overview of the current main role of each A/C in the FT fleet : MSN2 have been retired (but maintained airworthy, rumor says pending final destination decision), MSN4 dedicated to the tanker mode testing (although grounded for some time now, don't know why), MSN6 dedicated to aerial delivery and paratrooping, MSN56 "serial representative", airshows demonstrator and backup for the 2 others.

Is MSN56 supposed to stay a test frame permanently or will it be delivered to a customer later? According to ABCDlist.nl, it's "on order" for the RAF as ZM421, and during the last summer it flew with an RAF 100th anniversary sticker. Does it show up in the official list of orders and deliveries, or is there any other official announcement?
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:34 pm

Noray wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
WIederling wrote:

What is that going to be used for? Any idea?

( list of prototypes and test specimen:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... Prototypen )


Lots of things changed since the prototypes and it would require an awful lot of changes to bring them at the needed level for certain testing. Without speaking of the engines that are not representative at all of the serie (even on MSN6).
During 2018 MSN56 did Airshows, Low Level Flight, Terrain Following campaign and various stuff testing in the cargo.

An overview of the current main role of each A/C in the FT fleet : MSN2 have been retired (but maintained airworthy, rumor says pending final destination decision), MSN4 dedicated to the tanker mode testing (although grounded for some time now, don't know why), MSN6 dedicated to aerial delivery and paratrooping, MSN56 "serial representative", airshows demonstrator and backup for the 2 others.

Is MSN56 supposed to stay a test frame permanently or will it be delivered to a customer later? According to ABCDlist.nl, it's "on order" for the RAF as ZM421, and during the last summer it flew with an RAF 100th anniversary sticker. Does it show up in the official list of orders and deliveries, or is there any other official announcement?


Let's say that MSN56 going to the RAF at some point after a FT period is in line with what I heard. ;)
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:13 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
Noray wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:

Lots of things changed since the prototypes and it would require an awful lot of changes to bring them at the needed level for certain testing. Without speaking of the engines that are not representative at all of the serie (even on MSN6).
During 2018 MSN56 did Airshows, Low Level Flight, Terrain Following campaign and various stuff testing in the cargo.

An overview of the current main role of each A/C in the FT fleet : MSN2 have been retired (but maintained airworthy, rumor says pending final destination decision), MSN4 dedicated to the tanker mode testing (although grounded for some time now, don't know why), MSN6 dedicated to aerial delivery and paratrooping, MSN56 "serial representative", airshows demonstrator and backup for the 2 others.

Is MSN56 supposed to stay a test frame permanently or will it be delivered to a customer later? According to ABCDlist.nl, it's "on order" for the RAF as ZM421, and during the last summer it flew with an RAF 100th anniversary sticker. Does it show up in the official list of orders and deliveries, or is there any other official announcement?


Let's say that MSN56 going to the RAF at some point after a FT period is in line with what I heard. ;)

Rumors say that the RAF may be interested in a test frame to do some testing on their own (i. e. independently from Airbus).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos