Noray wrote:

It hasn't been announced yet what will be the other nations besides Germany. According to the first reports, there will be 10 German A400Ms in Lechfeld, which, given that Germany has ordered 53, would leave 2 or 3 aircraft for other partners (one could be used for tests).

mxaxai wrote:

Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.
Possibly the other white tail, MSN75, or perhaps one that is still in assembly. Not sure if they might swap a delivery here: MSN75 to a customer and the would-be delivery to the test fleet instead. I can't find which batch they're currently at (should be 4 or 5; 6 starts at MSN106) but if there's an upcoming switch soon, that would be a welcome opportunity to get the latest version into the test fleet.

Slug71 wrote:

Is there a reason the engines couldn't just be replaced on those frames?

mxaxai wrote:

Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.

Grizzly410 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.

Your news may be true but contradicts mine :
- Not heard about MSN6 engine trouble. As it flew normally last week and is away for testing this week too I feel there's nothing significant ongoing.
- MSN56 temporary addition to the test fleet have nothing to do with issues on others frame. More to do with the need to test some latest features without having to ground MSN6 during weeks to upgrade it plus the ability to use it as demonstrator during airshows (thus freeing MSN6 for testing like they did last year during RIAT/Farnborough).

But it's true about the rumor of adding again another specimen to the test fleet in order to regain some time lost during the MSN4 grounding.
In such scenario MSNx would be paired with MSN6 to work on the buddy refueling while MSN4 would be focused on the helicopter refueling POD development. Unless Airbus decide to incorporate another aircraft for long term I personally feel that it would be a customer aircraft rather than MSN75. Finish the assembly and assign engines for a bird you'll ground as soon as you complete the mission would be cost prohibitive.

keesje wrote:

Hanging out in Wales.. https://youtu.be/RT7c4W7Lbto?t=176

mffoda wrote:

"Does anyone know if the low level and and terrain-following capabilities have been certified now?"

NO... It has not.

Reddevil556 wrote:

Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator? I love the aircraft, but it seems a bit pretentious to retain the Airbus “A” for a military, espcially NATO focused aircraft

mxaxai wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator? I love the aircraft, but it seems a bit pretentious to retain the Airbus “A” for a military, espcially NATO focused aircraft

Probably because nobody cares? It was conceived within the traditional Airbus naming scheme. Outside of designators given to equipment bought by the US, most users use their own names for their own fleets anyway, compare the A330mrtt with the designators "KC.2"/"KC.3" in the UK, KC-45 in the US, KC-30 in Australia and "Phénix" or simply "A330 mrtt" in France.

Reddevil556 wrote:

Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator?

Reddevil556 wrote:

Was the A400 a program launched by Airbus without any specific government putting out a design requirement?

Noray wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

Was the A400 a program launched by Airbus without any specific government putting out a design requirement?

No, it was designed to meet a catalogue of 1000+ requirements assembled by the militaries of several European nations in the mid-1990s under the designation "Future Large Aircraft". Airbus more or less asserted that, based on their experience with civilian airliners, it should be a piece of cake to create a military transport, and it was going to get a civil certification as well. So it made sense to keep the traditional naming scheme.

Reddevil556 wrote:

Transall C-160?

prebennorholm wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

Transall C-160?

You tell us in your signature line that you have jumped from a C-212. Where does that C in the name come from? Well, all CASA designs during the last 75 years are named C- and a number. That includes for instance C-101 (a jet trainer) and C-223 (pretty much a Cessna 172 clone).

C-160? I don't know where that C comes from. But I think that the C-160 is the only French or German produced military transport, since the Wright Brothers, with such a C in its name. The number 160, however, is well known. It is the wing area in square meter. Originally there were multiple proposals with various runway- contra speed-/range- performance estimates, which of course pretty much was dictated by wing area. And in the end the 160 square meter wing was chosen as a compromise.

mercure1 wrote:

Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.

Ozair wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

Slug71 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

While the A400M is certainly also a big thorn in Airbus's side, I still think its design flaws are not as bad as the A380's. Far more addressable than the A380's. Now that the A380 is out of the way, hopefully they can actually tackle this beast and make a A400m2 out of it.
I think this had a little to do with killing off the A380 honestly. Maybe a lot. To address all the A380's flaws would pretty much require a clean sheet design, this not so much. The design flaws are comparatively much lower. The engines are making a lot of progress and Cobham is working on new pods.
I'm sure there are design improvements that can be made to supplement the pods and help the helo refueling, as well as the paratrooping from the side doors. And maybe some other tweaks. I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.

Airbus remains confident that it can secure export customers for its A400M airlifter, but has cautioned that sales are likely to be relatively modest given the aircraft’s cost and sophistication.

Speaking at the company’s annual press conference in Toulouse, CEO Tom Enders said that efforts continue to secure the first export customer for the type since Malaysia joined the programme in 2005, but that the aircraft’s superior capabilities and associated price-tag make it a challenging prospect compared to Airbus’ popular portfolio of smaller transport aircraft.

“Exporting the A400M is a very different game from the smaller transports built [at the same location] in Spain. The A400M is a product of the requirements of six [partner] nations who are very sophisticated, and you just don’t find those kind of customers around every corner,” Enders said on 14 February, adding, “I am optimistic that there will be exports, but it won’t be in the hundreds [of aircraft].”

To secure exports Airbus needs clear government support from the governments of France and the UK as the lead operators of the aircraft, Enders explained. “I believe we have a level of maturity now that makes it clear to potential export customers that we have an excellent aircraft with excellent supporting data,” he said.

Airbus has a 174-aircraft order book that comprises 53 for Germany, 50 for France, 27 for Spain, 22 for the UK, 10 for Turkey, eight for Belgium(including one to be operated on behalf of Luxembourg), and four for Malaysia. Of these, 72 have been delivered to date.

In March 2018 Indonesia confirmed its intention to procure two A400Ms, and the country is the Airbus’ strongest near-term prospect for a new export sale. Separately, South Korea is reported to be in talks with Spain to receive a number of its surplus aircraft.

Slug71 wrote:

I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.

Ozair wrote:

No one denies the capability of the aircraft but even Airbus is aware the market for the A400M is limited.

Airbus confident of A400M exports but says numbers may be modest

Airbus remains confident that it can secure export customers for its A400M airlifter, but has cautioned that sales are likely to be relatively modest given the aircraft’s cost and sophistication.

Speaking at the company’s annual press conference in Toulouse, CEO Tom Enders said that efforts continue to secure the first export customer for the type since Malaysia joined the programme in 2005, but that the aircraft’s superior capabilities and associated price-tag make it a challenging prospect compared to Airbus’ popular portfolio of smaller transport aircraft.

“Exporting the A400M is a very different game from the smaller transports built [at the same location] in Spain. The A400M is a product of the requirements of six [partner] nations who are very sophisticated, and you just don’t find those kind of customers around every corner,” Enders said on 14 February, adding, “I am optimistic that there will be exports, but it won’t be in the hundreds [of aircraft].”

Ozair wrote:

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

Ozair wrote:

Given Spain is looking to sell their excess frames to a potential export customer there simply isn't enough of a market to warrant keeping the aircraft in production past its partner nation deliveries.

Revelation wrote:

Is China viewed as a potential customer, or don't they prefer to roll their own too?

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

That won't be possible. At the very least, all orders from the partner nations will have to be delivered and they're not really in a rush to take them.

mxaxai wrote:

There are still hundreds of old C-130, An-12 and Il-76 in operation around the globe. There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either). Potential operaters come from the middle east, north Africa, south & south-east Asia and also Europe. Remember that, currently, the A400M is the heaviest western transport in production, except for the niche C-2.

mxaxai wrote:

Most features will be delivered by 2021 and most remaining bugs will also be found and fixed by then. The A400M hasn't seen much service beyond basic logistic missions. Showing its capabilities in combat or in exercises may convince a few potential buyers.

Ozair wrote:

Of course, I'm not saying cut production today and stop delivering aircraft but they could easily run the production down and deliver to existing orders. Once that is done finish the program and get it off the books given it is loss making and will remain loss making for its entire life.

Ozair wrote:

Wishful thinking at best. Even Enders doesn't expect those orders to come and given the competition in the market with the KC-390, C-130J, C-2, IL-476, Y-20 and a likely new medium Chinese transport there is little reason to acquire an A400M. As already established multiple times in the A400M threads there are so few nations that have the transport requirement set the A400M provides, clearly acknowledged again by Enders in the janes article above, so why buy that extra capability and all the costs that come associated with it.

Ozair wrote:

I don't understand this fascination with equipment being proved in combat, especially in the case of a medium transport. Any prospective buyer with a half decent procurement agency would have a very good idea of the operational and life cycle costs of the airframe without it ever having to see combat.

mxaxai wrote:

It is loss making because of the high development costs (still ongoing but will come to an end soon), ongoing reliability issues & retrofits and the inefficient production, which is a result of politics.

mxaxai wrote:

At 8 per year and a remaining backlog of exactly 100 aircraft, production can stretch until 2031 without any new orders.

mxaxai wrote:

Well, there are some countries that have more money than they can spend but not enough to build their own. Most of them may not feel comfortable buying from Russia or China. Circumstances can also change; a country that only needs the C-295 today may want something larger in 10 or 15 years. Thailand and the Ivory Coast, for example, recently ordered a C-295 each. Perhaps they'll come back for some A400M in a few years?

mxaxai wrote:

Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

It is loss making because of the high development costs (still ongoing but will come to an end soon), ongoing reliability issues & retrofits and the inefficient production, which is a result of politics.

I don't think politics had much to do with Airbus being unable to deliver to requirements and schedule. Sure a very tight contract held them to the letter but frankly the taxpayers of the respective partner nations should be happy with that.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

At 8 per year and a remaining backlog of exactly 100 aircraft, production can stretch until 2031 without any new orders.

How is that rate a good thing for the aircraft. It is nowhere near enough to manufacture efficiently. That lower rate also makes it less likely exports can be easily incorporated into the line and likely increases the opportunity to partners nations to sell their airframes, either used or directly off the line.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Well, there are some countries that have more money than they can spend but not enough to build their own. Most of them may not feel comfortable buying from Russia or China. Circumstances can also change; a country that only needs the C-295 today may want something larger in 10 or 15 years. Thailand and the Ivory Coast, for example, recently ordered a C-295 each. Perhaps they'll come back for some A400M in a few years?

Thailand and Ivory Coast... seriously?

mxaxai wrote:

Perhaps I worded that poorly. The development fuck-up is 90% Airbus' fault.
But the distributed, inefficient production is mostly the result of politics. I think you could easily reduce the production cost by 20% or more by streamlining the production, but the original partner countries won't allow that.

WIederling wrote:

IMHO one could make a case for sabotage from US aligned coalition of the willing countries.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.

You don't need combat to verify that a product is good or bad, a good evaluation team can make that determination. For example, Flanker has essentially an insignificant combat record but people buy it. Brazil certainly didn't buy the Gripen E based on its stellar combat record.

WIederling wrote:

Initial A400M problems can be assigned to CASA, Spain fending of controlling from Airbus core
hiding the massively overweight status of the design.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Had the A400 used Pratt Canada's engine, they would have probably landed 20 orders from there and missed many years of costly delay. The program would be a lot healthier today too.

tjh8402 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.

You don't need combat to verify that a product is good or bad, a good evaluation team can make that determination. For example, Flanker has essentially an insignificant combat record but people buy it. Brazil certainly didn't buy the Gripen E based on its stellar combat record.

+1. Add the F-35 to that list. Isn’t Germany the only potential customer that plane has lost (for political reasons)? Otherwise, it’s always beaten “combat proven” aircraft in competitions despite its (till recently) lack of any actual trial by fire and only limited recent competition in exercises.

The C-130J isn’t a concept or in test phase. It isn’t a show horse. It’s a workhorse that’s in operation around the world, flying in every environment and mission scenario required every day and everywhere.

Proven. Ready. Unmatched.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Had the A400 used Pratt Canada's engine, they would have probably landed 20 orders from there and missed many years of costly delay. The program would be a lot healthier today too.

mxaxai wrote:

There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either).

Noray wrote:

Which engine? There didn't exist any off-the-shelf engine for the A400M. That's why EPI boast that the TP400 is the most powerful Western turboprop. Any new development would have been risky.

426Shadow wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either).

Define "Like hotcakes" because according to the VP here we have over 80 on the books.

Revelation wrote:

Indeed, but PW had submitted a proposal that we're told Airbus was interested in pursuing yet politics drove them to the home grown solution, and we saw where that led. You can accept and allow for problems that came with the sheer scale of these engines such as the gearbox issues, but EPI did a lot of rookie mistakes like not using required practices while developing the FADEC software, and not checking for uninitialized data, that cost a lot of time and money and even unfortunately lives.

Noray wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either).

Define "Like hotcakes" because according to the VP here we have over 80 on the books.

There still are 100 A400Ms on the books, and since we all know from this forum's experts that the A400M is a complete commercial failure, 80 can't be "like hotcakes".

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has lost $billions, continues to do so, and is asking for another round of give backs by the customers.

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has lost $billions,

Revelation wrote:

Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

mxaxai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.

jupiter2 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?

jupiter2 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

jupiter2 wrote:

As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

[Generally the risk sharing partners get a benefit from having a set percentage of construction contracts going to their countries. This is what's happening with the F-35 for example. So any sales on top of the base orders become profit for the countries that threw money into development. At the purchase end it's whatever a country can negotiate with the builder.

South Korea has started talks with Spain about a potential sale of KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets in exchange for military transport aircraft Airbus A400M.
Korea’s officials said the Ministry of National Defense and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) have been reviewing Spain’s proposal to trade some of its A-400M transport planes, made by Airbus, for KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets produced by KAI.
Spain made the offer “through an unofficial route” in July 2018 at the Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom.
According to the Korea Times English-language newspapers, Spain has reportedly ordered 27 A-400Ms from Airbus. But has decided to sell 13 of them and received consent from Airbus.
It is reportedly hoping to deliver four to six A-400Ms to Korea in return for 30 KT-1s and 20 T-50s.
Also reported that 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, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.
According to Airbus, the A400M is the most advanced, proven and certified airlifter available, combining 21st century state-of-the-art technologies to fulfill the current and upcoming Armed Forces’ needs. The A400M combines the capability to carry strategic loads with the ability to deliver even into tactical locations with small and unprepared airstrips. And in addition it acts as a frontline-tanker for other aircraft.

Ozair wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

It really depends on the export sale. The US FMS program requires that nations pay towards the non-recurring costs, both for development and for production, but nations are able to obtain a waiver for these costs. The waivers can be granted to NATO partners, Australia, Japan etc in instances were the acquisition advances US interest in standardisation. I’d expect every F-35 acquirer will not pay NC costs given the standardisation argument.

jupiter2 wrote:

As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?

Exactly. The argument was nonsensical and not only that but when FMS sales occur, which happened with Japan and South Korea, they pay the price the US pays for the aircraft in that year, plus admin fees above.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

[Generally the risk sharing partners get a benefit from having a set percentage of construction contracts going to their countries. This is what's happening with the F-35 for example. So any sales on top of the base orders become profit for the countries that threw money into development. At the purchase end it's whatever a country can negotiate with the builder.

The A400M context is slightly different though. In 2011 the deal for bailout cash included each of the partners paying an “export levy facility” to EADS. The intent was that EADS would pay this money back out of future export sales. So far no export sale has occurred since that date…

Let’s be clear though, there is no way that any export success would allow the program to break even. Airbus has taken approximately nine billion Euro in write offs on this program, not including the additional funding sums that the partner governments have provided. The acquisition price of the aircraft, even counting for inflation, is about twice what it was advertised.


Another article on the potential for the Spanish to seel a portion of their aircraft to South Korea and even then they want to shed 13 aircraft but South Korea is only interested in four to six.

Korea enters transport planes talks with Spain

South Korea has started talks with Spain about a potential sale of KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets in exchange for military transport aircraft Airbus A400M.
Korea’s officials said the Ministry of National Defense and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) have been reviewing Spain’s proposal to trade some of its A-400M transport planes, made by Airbus, for KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets produced by KAI.
Spain made the offer “through an unofficial route” in July 2018 at the Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom.
According to the Korea Times English-language newspapers, Spain has reportedly ordered 27 A-400Ms from Airbus. But has decided to sell 13 of them and received consent from Airbus.
It is reportedly hoping to deliver four to six A-400Ms to Korea in return for 30 KT-1s and 20 T-50s.
Also reported that 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, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.
According to Airbus, the A400M is the most advanced, proven and certified airlifter available, combining 21st century state-of-the-art technologies to fulfill the current and upcoming Armed Forces’ needs. The A400M combines the capability to carry strategic loads with the ability to deliver even into tactical locations with small and unprepared airstrips. And in addition it acts as a frontline-tanker for other aircraft.

https://defence-blog.com/news/korea-ent ... spain.html