Catfry
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:40 pm

Image
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bv6NTOBB8E2 ... hare_sheet

Above picture was taken very recently. Correct me if I'm wrong but there initially was an issue with refueling helicopters. The proposed solution was to lengthen the refuelling hoses. This might be a test of those. I'm no expert but they do seem longer than usual
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:32 am

Nice catch! Apparently a EC725 Caracal is used for this testing.

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ec725_caracal.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:55 pm

 
Ozair
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:45 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:


An interesting arrangement but not a surprise that Indonesia is still interested in the aircraft. Likely to only be two to four airframes though so little impact on the overall program and still possible these could be either used airframes or come from the Spanish expected total order.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:03 am

Ozair wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:


An interesting arrangement but not a surprise that Indonesia is still interested in the aircraft. Likely to only be two to four airframes though so little impact on the overall program and still possible these could be either used airframes or come from the Spanish expected total order.

Used airframes I'm not sure, as it would command a huge retrofit to get rid of many OCCAR stuff and get close to the Malaysian standard. MSN75 would be a given though (stored after structural assembly only), and one to three slots to find in the 2020-2021 period doesn't look like a big challenge to me.
The idea of an Indonesian order floats around for years, I'm pretty sure Airbus Defence&Space always have a plan in place to react very quickly in case this potential sale materialize a bit more.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:50 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
get rid of many OCCAR stuff and get close to the Malaysian standard

Can you elaborate on the difference between these two standards? Does that mean that a less heavy and less expensive export version already exists?
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:02 am

Noray wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
get rid of many OCCAR stuff and get close to the Malaysian standard

Can you elaborate on the difference between these two standards? Does that mean that a less heavy and less expensive export version already exists?


I can't go in details due to NDA, and also because I don't remember the details either :biggrin: but basically for a Malaysian one some part of the avionic and architecture for ATA43 Tactical Comm are different, and a large part for ATA9x Military Mission System too.
IRC there is also some differences in the cockpit layout, in particular for the 3rd crew member.
Plus, ATA48 In Flight Refueling is lighter as it's not prepared to receive cargo tanks or the centerline dispenser (for this one, it wouldn't be a problem to sell a used with the full ATA48 provision to Indonesia).

All an all yes it's an export version but I'm not sure it would qualify as a "less heavy and less expensive export version" like I mentioned upthread as even if it is slightly different it still sports nearly the same capabilities.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
vr773
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 02, 2019 7:10 pm

The Luftwaffe is using an A400M for Angela Merkel's West Africa trip. She's had stops in Ougadougou, Niamey, and Bamako but the A400M was necessary for landing in Goa in northern Mali when she visited Bundeswehr troops there.
Image
 
vr773
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 02, 2019 7:16 pm

German and British AF trained together as part of the handover of the Baltic Air Policing. The training included re-fueling of British Eurofighters using a German A400M:
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 23, 2019 9:52 am

Apparently the US Navy dropped an A400M Request For Information at Lockheed Martin. Doesn't mean anything, don't worry..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Hmm, US Navy... I can only imagine someone, somewhere thinking "Hmm, maybe THIS will make a better COBD aircraft than the V-22...
 
texl1649
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 23, 2019 1:30 pm

That would have to be the least likely possible A400M customer outside of maybe....I dunno, some small African forces.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 23, 2019 6:45 pm

keesje wrote:
Apparently the US Navy dropped an A400M Request For Information at Lockheed Martin. Doesn't mean anything, don't worry..

Oh Keesje, I love your enthusiasm as well as your sarcasm. But worry not, this really doesn't mean anything.
texl1649 wrote:
That would have to be the least likely possible A400M customer outside of maybe....I dunno, some small African forces.

Actually, the US are probably the most likely large customer outside of Europe. Well, Saudi Arabia may be interested but political interference probably put those talks on hold. Mind you, I don't think that they will buy. Especially not while Trump is president. But it would be foolish to not at least have a detailed look at its capabilities.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 23, 2019 6:53 pm

I suspect USN is just looking for an explanation for:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... in-the-sky
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 23, 2019 8:57 pm

keesje wrote:
Apparently the US Navy dropped an A400M Request For Information at Lockheed Martin. Doesn't mean anything, don't worry..


Where is your source and what LM have to do here??

IMO, no way that would be for an order. If anything I think that's plausible though, one day or another Airbus will send a bird the other side of the pond for marketing. It's fair to imagine the USN or other will enjoy such a visit to prepare some testing and check what kind of mission A400M users could serve for them.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri May 24, 2019 12:30 am

There's also an element of just plain and simple due diligence. Learning more about a platform to make sure you do have the right mix of systems. And possibly influence any future RFPs. Even if we 'know' the US won't buy any it's still plausible that they'll want data on it.
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat May 25, 2019 12:15 am

vr773 wrote:
German and British AF trained together as part of the handover of the Baltic Air Policing. The training included re-fueling of British Eurofighters using a German A400M:
Image


As far as I've read, the British Eurofighters took part in the training, but didn't get refueled as there was some kind of clearance missing for refueling non-German EFs from German A400Ms.

Grizzly410 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Apparently the US Navy dropped an A400M Request For Information at Lockheed Martin. Doesn't mean anything, don't worry..


Where is your source and what LM have to do here??

The Spanish newspaper El Confidencial reported this two weeks ago. They say that LM was already a local partner for the sale of CN235s to the US Cost Guard in 2006.

They also report that a German veto has prevented the sale of some A400Ms to Saudi Arabia.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 30, 2019 1:15 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
, one day or another Airbus will send a bird the other side of the pond for marketing. It's fair to imagine the USN or other will enjoy such a visit to prepare some testing and check what kind of mission A400M users could serve for them.


Maybe this day came very quick ?

MSN56 (EC-400) crossing the pond right now.
https://fr24.com/EC400/20b371b5
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu May 30, 2019 9:54 pm

The A400M has unique capabilities in terms of load dimensions, tactical capabilities, speed, range and tanking.

If you look at the operational requirements an realities of operations, a combination of C-130s and C-17 seems to have become too restrictive.

And it is for sale.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 12:39 am

keesje wrote:
The A400M has unique capabilities in terms of load dimensions, tactical capabilities, speed, range and tanking.

So does KC-390. Thanks for raising the issue, as moot as it is.

keesje wrote:
If you look at the operational requirements an realities of operations, a combination of C-130s and C-17 seems to have become too restrictive.

Says you.

keesje wrote:
And it is for sale.

As is:
    F-35
    F-15EX
    KC-46
    B-21
    T-X
    EC-37B
Guess which ones are funded.

The odds of this administration adding many billions of dollars to procure a largely non-US aircraft are tiny.

The odds of the US Congress funding an A400M are about the same as them funding an A380 for AF1.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 5:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The A400M has unique capabilities in terms of load dimensions, tactical capabilities, speed, range and tanking.

So does KC-390. Thanks for raising the issue, as moot as it is.

keesje wrote:
If you look at the operational requirements an realities of operations, a combination of C-130s and C-17 seems to have become too restrictive.

Says you.

keesje wrote:
And it is for sale.

As is:
    F-35
    F-15EX
    KC-46
    B-21
    T-X
    EC-37B
Guess which ones are funded.

The odds of this administration adding many billions of dollars to procure a largely non-US aircraft are tiny.

The odds of the US Congress funding an A400M are about the same as them funding an A380 for AF1.


It would be useful to do some research on recent US Marines vehicle developments, look respectfully at the C-130J, and put yourself in the shoes of Michele Evans, and consider your options.. Requirements have changed, the US Navy dropped the A400M RFI in Bethesda, not in Toulouse. Now Boeing joined Embraer on the KC-390, what are the best options for LM? Maybe sticking to the Hercules won't work forever..https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/12/Lockheed-Martin-and-Airbus-sign-aerial-refuelling-Memorandum-of-Agreement.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:01 pm

keesje wrote:

It would be useful to do some research on recent US Marines vehicle developments, look respectfully at the C-130J, and put yourself in the shoes of Michele Evans, and consider your options.. Requirements have changed, the US Navy dropped the A400M RFI in Bethesda, not in Toulouse. Now Boeing joined Embraer on the KC-390, what are the best options for LM? Maybe sticking to the Hercules won't work forever..https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/12/Lockheed-Martin-and-Airbus-sign-aerial-refuelling-Memorandum-of-Agreement.html

Keesje, not only does the air refuelling MOU have nothing to do with the A400M but we have been over this IFV fantasy of yours multiple times. The USMC has no interest in the A400M, the vehicle they are acquiring is the ACV which is focused on amphibious movement, not air transport. The vehicle today is right at 35t, so just below the max payload of the A400M. Without doubt that weight will rise as additional systems are added to the vehicle, given it is only just entering production, pushing it above A400M compatibility. even the current weight is too close to the max payload to be effective anyway given the associated equipment that would have to travel with the vehicle.

The issue the A400M faces today is its inability to carry the next generation of combat vehicles being acquired by western nations, whether US or Europe. The Lynx 41 is a perfect example. It is likely to be acquired by Australia, the US is very interested in it as a replacement for the Bradley fleet. Once those two nations acquire the vehicle will likely see significant other interest and sales. It is 44 ton so straight out of the gate too heavy for the A400M.

The trend continues to be for heavier vehicles and the A400M isn't the answer to moving those vehicles by air...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
Keesje, not only does the air refuelling MOU have nothing to do with the A400M but we have been over this IFV fantasy of yours multiple times. The USMC has no interest in the A400M, the vehicle they are acquiring is the ACV which is focused on amphibious movement, not air transport. The vehicle today is right at 35t, so just below the max payload of the A400M. Without doubt that weight will rise as additional systems are added to the vehicle, given it is only just entering production, pushing it above A400M compatibility. even the current weight is too close to the max payload to be effective anyway given the associated equipment that would have to travel with the vehicle.

The issue the A400M faces today is its inability to carry the next generation of combat vehicles being acquired by western nations, whether US or Europe. The Lynx 41 is a perfect example. It is likely to be acquired by Australia, the US is very interested in it as a replacement for the Bradley fleet. Once those two nations acquire the vehicle will likely see significant other interest and sales. It is 44 ton so straight out of the gate too heavy for the A400M.

The trend continues to be for heavier vehicles and the A400M isn't the answer to moving those vehicles by air...

I think you raise some very good points.

It makes very little sense for DoD to invest in new air transports until after next generation ground vehicles are not just being mooted, but after a selection is made, their funding is secured, and detailed specifications are known, especially with regard to full up weight in actual combat configuration.

Given how past USA/USMC procurement has gone, it'd be foolish to order a new fleet of aircraft just because some proposals are being mooted.

Clearly whatever next generation vehicles are selected will need to be transportable by C-17, and in the early days USA/USMC will just have to deal with whatever restrictions arise from being transported by C-17.

You can make up for a lot of mismatches by the fact that USAF has > 220 C-17s to throw at the problem.

Once the new vehicle landscape becomes more clear, I'm sure that the US Congress will focus on solutions that involve investing in next generation US technology and creating jobs in the US, rather than funding previous generation EU technology and EU jobs.

If this type of strategy is not already abundantly obvious, I think US defense contractors might spend some effort in informing the Congress.

I think all of the above will remember how the last transport ended up with a production run of 279 and a profitable stream of post production revenue to boot.

Or we can just go with the idea that these US defense contractors and their lobbyists will be asleep at the switch and the Congress will happily fund (very) expensive previous generation largely EU made air transports for an unfunded fleet of next generation ground vehicles just because USMC showed some interest in them. :scratchchin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:18 pm

I think look at the requirements, look at what is available & let the clock thick..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:19 pm

keesje wrote:
I think look at the requirements, look at what is available & let the clock thick..

I might think the same, if I believed the world was free of guile.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:44 am

If we think of the US Navy as an independent force, it's the ideal customer for an allrounder like the A400M.

According to Wikipedia, the USN hasn't got more than 17 C-130s, and no larger transport aircraft at all. So an A400M aquisition probably wouldn't comprise a huge number of aircraft either and will only require a limited budget. I guess that USN transport aircraft won't carry lots of IFVs, but supply bases, ships and other USN aircraft. In this context, the A400M's better range, speed and cargo capacity and its ability to refuel the US Navy's F-18s and F-35s etc. will be relevant. With the A400M, the USN will be less dependent on other services and will increase its own aerial cargo and refuelling (and even SAR) capacity.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:40 am

Noray wrote:
If we think of the US Navy as an independent force, it's the ideal customer for an allrounder like the A400M.

According to Wikipedia, the USN hasn't got more than 17 C-130s, and no larger transport aircraft at all. So an A400M aquisition probably wouldn't comprise a huge number of aircraft either and will only require a limited budget. I guess that USN transport aircraft won't carry lots of IFVs, but supply bases, ships and other USN aircraft. In this context, the A400M's better range, speed and cargo capacity and its ability to refuel the US Navy's F-18s and F-35s etc. will be relevant. With the A400M, the USN will be less dependent on other services and will increase its own aerial cargo and refuelling (and even SAR) capacity.

Thing is, USN is not an independent force, it's a part of the DoD, and DoD doesn't even control its own purse strings, that is done by Congress.

The odds of this Congress and this Administration deciding to buy A400Ms is tiny, IMHO.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:30 am

Revelation wrote:
Thing is, USN is not an independent force, it's a part of the DoD, and DoD doesn't even control its own purse strings, that is done by Congress.

The odds of this Congress and this Administration deciding to buy A400Ms is tiny, IMHO.

I was trying to empathize with those in the USN who ordered the evaluation, and my assumptions were that they're no imbeciles and that military branches tend to have their own pride.

I wasn't aware of the fact that an official speaker of the US Congress is a member of this forum, though.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:22 pm

Noray wrote:
If we think of the US Navy as an independent force, it's the ideal customer for an allrounder like the A400M.

According to Wikipedia, the USN hasn't got more than 17 C-130s, and no larger transport aircraft at all. So an A400M aquisition probably wouldn't comprise a huge number of aircraft either and will only require a limited budget. I guess that USN transport aircraft won't carry lots of IFVs, but supply bases, ships and other USN aircraft. In this context, the A400M's better range, speed and cargo capacity and its ability to refuel the US Navy's F-18s and F-35s etc. will be relevant. With the A400M, the USN will be less dependent on other services and will increase its own aerial cargo and refuelling (and even SAR) capacity.

What purpose would the USN have in building up a transport fleet? They haven't operated those types of aircraft in numbers since the Second World War, why would they suddenly decide to do so today? The USN also has literally no funding available going forward given what they are trying to replace today and into the future. Acquiring a turboprop tactical air transport when you have a ballistic missile fleet to replace, carriers to build, a new frigate program about to be down selected, a new tactical aircraft to develop, a new destroyer fleet to induct etc would be a stupid decision, there is just no priority for it.

To put it even further, the USN doesn't operate a large IFV fleet which apparently the A400M was designed to transport around, what do you expect they will use the A400M for that the C-130 or other transports couldn't provide?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:28 pm

Ozair wrote:
Noray wrote:
If we think of the US Navy as an independent force, it's the ideal customer for an allrounder like the A400M.

According to Wikipedia, the USN hasn't got more than 17 C-130s, and no larger transport aircraft at all. So an A400M aquisition probably wouldn't comprise a huge number of aircraft either and will only require a limited budget. I guess that USN transport aircraft won't carry lots of IFVs, but supply bases, ships and other USN aircraft. In this context, the A400M's better range, speed and cargo capacity and its ability to refuel the US Navy's F-18s and F-35s etc. will be relevant. With the A400M, the USN will be less dependent on other services and will increase its own aerial cargo and refuelling (and even SAR) capacity.

What purpose would the USN have in building up a transport fleet? They haven't operated those types of aircraft in numbers since the Second World War, why would they suddenly decide to do so today? The USN also has literally no funding available going forward given what they are trying to replace today and into the future. Acquiring a turboprop tactical air transport when you have a ballistic missile fleet to replace, carriers to build, a new frigate program about to be down selected, a new tactical aircraft to develop, a new destroyer fleet to induct etc would be a stupid decision, there is just no priority for it.

To put it even further, the USN doesn't operate a large IFV fleet which apparently the A400M was designed to transport around, what do you expect they will use the A400M for that the C-130 or other transports couldn't provide?

Well, the A400M is larger and faster than the C-130. It also has excellent aerial delivery capabilities. I'm sure that amphibious forces like the marines would appreciate it if more supplies can be delivered faster to the spot where they are needed. Of course you can solve that by throwing more C-130s at the problem, which seems to be the preferred solution for now.
It can also help you move large spare parts around the world quickly. Of course having the USAF C-17 fleet to cover those needs is quite fortunate. Which is why I agree with Noray that the USN on its own could very well use an 'allrounder' like the A400M, but doesn't require them due to the support from other branches.

Ozair wrote:
The trend continues to be for heavier vehicles and the A400M isn't the answer to moving those vehicles by air...

We have seen armored vehicle weight increase multiple times in history. Every time, the users eventually decided that new technology rendered the concept of "let's add some more armor" obsolete, and developed lighter, more mobile platforms. For comparison, the Leopard 1 - an MBT - is lighter than the Lynx 41 - an IFV. The pendulum will swing back and forth again and again.

Revelation wrote:
Once the new vehicle landscape becomes more clear, I'm sure that the US Congress will focus on solutions that involve investing in next generation US technology and creating jobs in the US, rather than funding previous generation EU technology and EU jobs.

Exactly what will this "next generation" technology offer that the existing transports do not? Why wait for 20 years when you could have the same capability today?
 
Ozair
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:45 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Well, the A400M is larger and faster than the C-130. It also has excellent aerial delivery capabilities. I'm sure that amphibious forces like the marines would appreciate it if more supplies can be delivered faster to the spot where they are needed. Of course you can solve that by throwing more C-130s at the problem, which seems to be the preferred solution for now.
It can also help you move large spare parts around the world quickly. Of course having the USAF C-17 fleet to cover those needs is quite fortunate. Which is why I agree with Noray that the USN on its own could very well use an 'allrounder' like the A400M, but doesn't require them due to the support from other branches.

But they don't use that now, why will they in the future. The USMC equipment is focused on sea movement, as with the USN proper. They simply don't need what the A400M offers.

mxaxai wrote:
We have seen armored vehicle weight increase multiple times in history. Every time, the users eventually decided that new technology rendered the concept of "let's add some more armor" obsolete, and developed lighter, more mobile platforms. For comparison, the Leopard 1 - an MBT - is lighter than the Lynx 41 - an IFV. The pendulum will swing back and forth again and again.

Your example doesn't support your argument. The replacement for the Leo 1 was the Leo 2, 30 tonnes heavier...

I can't think of an IFV that has been lighter than the one it replaced and every single one of them gain weight as they age.

mxaxai wrote:
Exactly what will this "next generation" technology offer that the existing transports do not? Why wait for 20 years when you could have the same capability today?

Because the USN cannot afford it. In 20 years, if for some reason they developed a requirement for a strategic transport, then they could utilise the next USAF transport as a basis. Makes sense to combine and save money while getting the latest technology available to them in a platform that will last longer and almost certainly be acquired in larger numbers thereby being easier and cheaper to sustain.
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:25 pm

Ozair wrote:
What purpose would the USN have in building up a transport fleet? They haven't operated those types of aircraft in numbers since the Second World War, why would they suddenly decide to do so today?

As stated before, the USN does operate an air transport fleet; many smaller countries would be proud of its size. According to this blog post, it includes 24 C-130Ts as well 15 C-40s, a B737 variant. I hadn't been aware of the latter in my previous post. Its maximum payload is 18,000 kg, that's even less than the C-130. The requirements seem to be more on the logistics side than on the tactical side, so I doubt that the C-130 is the ideal aircraft for the Navy, and the ability to carry outsize and heavy goods beyond the C-130's capacity is missing.

Ozair wrote:
To put it even further, the USN doesn't operate a large IFV fleet

That's what I said. Talking about IFVs in a US Navy context is a red herring.

Ozair wrote:
which apparently the A400M was designed to transport around, what do you expect they will use the A400M for that the C-130 or other transports couldn't provide?

The A400M was designed for a wide range of tasks. In an USN context this is what comes to my mind: Carry Seahawk helicopters and boats up to the size of the Riverine Command Boat. The Spanish even have transported an F-18 in an A400M. They and the Malaysians also have gained experience with refueling F-18s from the A400M. The A400M's increased speed comes in handy when it accompanies and refuels fighters, as the Malaysians have shown when they attended an exercise in Australia. Airdrop of heavier loads at greater distances than the C-130 allows. Increased range and fuel capacity in aerial refueling compared to the KC-130s the Navy is operating. It has been suggested that the A400M is ideal for providing aerial refueling from small Island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean, which would be useful to counter the Chinese expansion there.

[Edited several times to add more ideas.]
Last edited by Noray on Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:42 pm

Ozair wrote:
But they don't use that now, why will they in the future. The USMC equipment is focused on sea movement, as with the USN proper. They simply don't need what the A400M offers.

If USN and USMC have no need for fixed wing transports, why exactly do they operate about 70 C-130? Which, I should note, are the smallest aircraft in their inventory that can carry some F-35 engine parts.

Ozair wrote:
Your example doesn't support your argument. The replacement for the Leo 1 was the Leo 2, 30 tonnes heavier...

I can't think of an IFV that has been lighter than the one it replaced and every single one of them gain weight as they age.

Well, at the end of WW2 heavy tanks were reaching 60 tons or more. Prototypes like the Maus even reached >100 tons. Even the Leo 2 initially only weighed less than 55 tons. When your supporting infrastructure cannot cope with the weights, you'll have to get creative. Heavier vehicles means heavier spare parts, higher fuel consumption, stronger roads & bridges, larger transport vehicles, etc. The logistics get more complicated. Just how mobile does Australia's army expect to be with the Lynx (or any other modern IFV), when they only have 6 C-17s?

Also, you don't always have to do a 1 for 1 replacement. What replaced WW2 heavy tanks? Lighter MBT's. What replaced battleships? Aircraft carriers and guided missile destroyers. What replaced interceptors and bombers? Multirole fighters.

Edit: I'd like to emphasize that the USN obviously doesn't care about carrying IFV's or other heavy vehicles. But they do have other things to transport ...
Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Exactly what will this "next generation" technology offer that the existing transports do not? Why wait for 20 years when you could have the same capability today?

Because the USN cannot afford it. In 20 years, if for some reason they developed a requirement for a strategic transport, then they could utilise the next USAF transport as a basis. Makes sense to combine and save money while getting the latest technology available to them in a platform that will last longer and almost certainly be acquired in larger numbers thereby being easier and cheaper to sustain.

The question was in a broader direction, not just USN. Of course the USN won't develop their own aircraft.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:29 pm

Noray wrote:
Ozair wrote:
What purpose would the USN have in building up a transport fleet? They haven't operated those types of aircraft in numbers since the Second World War, why would they suddenly decide to do so today?

As stated before, the USN does operate an air transport fleet; many smaller countries would be proud of its size. According to this blog post, it includes 24 C-130Ts as well 15 C-40s, a B737 variant.

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-40_Clipper tells us:

In the 2018 Marine Aviation Plan, the U.S. Marine Corps indicated that it intended to acquire two C-40A aircraft for airlift missions, replacing its Skytrain fleet.[5] On December 4, 2018 an online notice was posted by the Marines seeking a supplier of C-40s to be delivered in 2020.[1] The USMC Skytrains were retired in 2017 and to prepare for the transition to new aircraft, personnel from Marine Transport Squadron One were assigned to operate Navy Clippers until the arrival of their own aircraft. [6]

Looks like USMC's needs in this space are being addressed.

A quick survey of other wiki pages gives us fly away costs:

    C-130J: US$67.3 million
    C-40: US$70 million
    A400M: €152.4m (approx US$170m)

See which one is unlike the others?

Basically A400M is in the same price category as C-17 and KC-46A.

There's no way the US Congress spends the kinds of sums people are conjuring in this thread to buy expensive imported transports for the USN and USMC.

As I wrote, USMC is already transitioning to C-40 to cover the longer range transportation needs and will keep using C-130J in its current role for the foreseeable future.

As also mentioned in this thread, USN already has too many costly programs to fund to ever hope to gain funding for an expensive imported transport.

The obvious low cost low risk politically acceptable route is to buy more C-40 and C-130J till the future ground vehicle situation is resolved.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:45 am

Revelation wrote:
Noray wrote:
Ozair wrote:
What purpose would the USN have in building up a transport fleet? They haven't operated those types of aircraft in numbers since the Second World War, why would they suddenly decide to do so today?

As stated before, the USN does operate an air transport fleet; many smaller countries would be proud of its size. According to this blog post, it includes 24 C-130Ts as well 15 C-40s, a B737 variant.

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-40_Clipper tells us:

In the 2018 Marine Aviation Plan, the U.S. Marine Corps indicated that it intended to acquire two C-40A aircraft for airlift missions, replacing its Skytrain fleet.[5] On December 4, 2018 an online notice was posted by the Marines seeking a supplier of C-40s to be delivered in 2020.[1] The USMC Skytrains were retired in 2017 and to prepare for the transition to new aircraft, personnel from Marine Transport Squadron One were assigned to operate Navy Clippers until the arrival of their own aircraft. [6]

Looks like USMC's needs in this space are being addressed.

What's your point? This isn't about the USMC, but the USN, which recently decided to evaluate new aircraft. Obviously their current abilities aren't sufficient.

Revelation wrote:
A quick survey of other wiki pages gives us fly away costs:

    C-130J: US$67.3 million
    C-40: US$70 million
    A400M: €152.4m (approx US$170m)

See which one is unlike the others?

Two of these types are irelevant to the discussion since the USN already operates them, hence they don't add any new capability.
The third has got capabilities the others don't have, which makes your cost comparison futile.

Revelation wrote:
There's no way the US Congress spends the kinds of sums people are conjuring in this thread to buy expensive imported transports for the USN and USMC.

Now that's finally an original idea that's never been heard before in this thread. :roll:

Revelation wrote:
As I wrote, USMC is already transitioning to C-40 to cover the longer range transportation needs and will keep using C-130J in its current role for the foreseeable future.

As also mentioned in this thread, USN already has too many costly programs to fund to ever hope to gain funding for an expensive imported transport.

The obvious low cost low risk politically acceptable route is to buy more C-40 and C-130J till the future ground vehicle situation is resolved.

C-40 can't airdrop or refuel, none of both will carry Seahawks or Riverine Command Boats.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:25 am

Noray wrote:
What's your point? This isn't about the USMC, but the USN, which recently decided to evaluate new aircraft. Obviously their current abilities aren't sufficient.

Aren't you letting your imagination run a bit wild based on a un-corroborated one liner from the board's most well known Airbus partisan?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:26 am

Revelation wrote:
Noray wrote:
What's your point? This isn't about the USMC, but the USN, which recently decided to evaluate new aircraft. Obviously their current abilities aren't sufficient.

Aren't you letting your imagination run a bit wild based on a un-corroborated one liner from the board's most well known Airbus partisan?

El confidencial is a member of this board?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:46 am

Noray wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Noray wrote:
What's your point? This isn't about the USMC, but the USN, which recently decided to evaluate new aircraft. Obviously their current abilities aren't sufficient.

Aren't you letting your imagination run a bit wild based on a un-corroborated one liner from the board's most well known Airbus partisan?

El confidencial is a member of this board?

Great, you hang your hat on one foreign language report posted by this board's most well known Airbus partisan convince you that this Congress and this Administration will decide to buy imported A400Ms at $170M a pop just because USN might decide they want to fling Seahawks or Riverine Command Boats at various places around the globe without using USAF resources or without consideration of other current or future DoD requirements or priorities.

Seems you avoid the funding issue entirely, presumably because it gives the lie to your whole argument.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
Noray wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Aren't you letting your imagination run a bit wild based on a un-corroborated one liner from the board's most well known Airbus partisan?

El confidencial is a member of this board?

Great, you hang your hat on one foreign language report posted by this board's most well known Airbus partisan convince you that this Congress and this Administration will decide to buy imported A400Ms at $170M a pop just because USN might decide they want to fling Seahawks or Riverine Command Boats at various places around the globe without using USAF resources or without consideration of other current or future DoD requirements or priorities.

Seems you avoid the funding issue entirely, presumably because it gives the lie to your whole argument.

I'm the one who had posted the El Confidencial link (#117). I had found it two weeks earlier, and since then I had seen at least one Twitter post that reported the same. I'm probably not "this board's most well known Airbus partisan". Then there was a post by Grizzly410 (#118), who seems to be an Airbus insider, but not "this board's most well known Airbus partisan" either. He reported that an A400M test frame was crossing the pond.

It's true that we don't have any official confirmation from Airbus or the US Navy. But for me, the evidence is clear enough that some US service is expanding its horizon without letting itself get constrained by budget restrictions the way you are trying to restrict the discussion with your repeated hints towards that topic.

Also, there are no budget constraints for forum posts. In my view, a forum should help find the truth, not suppress it. Even if the truth is that an American service doesn't possess the ideal equipment because that's produced outside of the country and the US forces and US industry are committed to an aircraft designed almost 70 years ago.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:06 pm

The USN has a top 10 priority list that maybe 7 items are getting the support needed, I really doubt getting into the transport business is one of them.

They do need a supply plane that can land on carriers, but that could be a follow on drone after the MQ-25 is in service.

Speaking of Riverine boats - the navy has only ordered a dozen of the Mark VI boats, they could buy several dozen of them for the price of one A-400.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12944
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:20 pm

Ozair wrote:
But they don't use that now, why will they in the future. The USMC equipment is focused on sea movement, as with the USN proper. They simply don't need what the A400M offers.


The Marines don't use VTOL fixed wing transports, high speed rotorcraft, stealth aircraft or micro drones now. They probably will in the future.

It seems some get remarkably creative and flexible in their efforts to disqualify a best fit aircraft not from here.

Reasoning, discussing with a pre-set, non negotiable end conclusion :rotfl:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:07 pm

Sales of the A-400 have been so brisk that there is a decade long backlog, how could any be available for the USN.

<< Hasn't actual orders been stuck at 174 since 2005? Since 2013 it appears that 79 are delivered. That is nearly 1 per month. >>>
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:14 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Sales of the A-400 have been so brisk that there is a decade long backlog, how could any be available for the USN.

<< Hasn't actual orders been stuck at 174 since 2005? Since 2013 it appears that 79 are delivered. That is nearly 1 per month. >>>


It's bad, but the project is currently going through issues with capability clauses and contract negotiations etc... Possibly including design changes. As far as I recall, It's still supposed to meet the 40t capability. At least I would imagine, since vehicle weights are increasing. No sense in rushing production now I would think.
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:58 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Sales of the A-400 have been so brisk that there is a decade long backlog, how could any be available for the USN.

<< Hasn't actual orders been stuck at 174 since 2005? Since 2013 it appears that 79 are delivered. That is nearly 1 per month. >>>

Thanks to Spanish overordering, new customers have a chance to get some A400Ms even without the total rising above 174.

Spain is in talks with South Korea about a swap deal: ca. six A400Ms in return for ca. 50 trainer aircraft.

That would leave ca. 7 more Spanish A400Ms for another deal, as they're trying to resell 13 out of 27 A400Ms they ordered.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:03 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
The USN has a top 10 priority list that maybe 7 items are getting the support needed, I really doubt getting into the transport business is one of them.

They do need a supply plane that can land on carriers, but that could be a follow on drone after the MQ-25 is in service.

Speaking of Riverine boats - the navy has only ordered a dozen of the Mark VI boats, they could buy several dozen of them for the price of one A-400.

It's interesting how other MilAv threads feature the question "will that get funded?" whereas in this thread the partisans say we must not consider that.

It's kind of like going to see a fantasy film in a theater, where willingful suspension of belief is required for one to enjoy the film.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The USN has a top 10 priority list that maybe 7 items are getting the support needed, I really doubt getting into the transport business is one of them.

They do need a supply plane that can land on carriers, but that could be a follow on drone after the MQ-25 is in service.

Speaking of Riverine boats - the navy has only ordered a dozen of the Mark VI boats, they could buy several dozen of them for the price of one A-400.

It's interesting how other MilAv threads feature the question "will that get funded?" whereas in this thread the partisans say we must not consider that.

It's kind of like going to see a fantasy film in a theater, where willingful suspension of belief is required for one to enjoy the film.


A number of other fantasy films seem to have bombed with the DOD - DDG1000, the LCS ships, and a lot with the USS Ford. It seems quite appropriate that the Ford is like its namesake, the president that seemed to stumble and bumble often. I understand the big need to change from steam to electric catapults but there was no need to go high tech with the arrestors nor the elevators. So far only 2 of 11 of the elevators are in service, they hope to have 4 by the fall.

DOD appears to be doing 'reality TV' now, most of the new programs seem quite practical, a big change from the fantasy of the past.

Just like with commercial planes, the best way to judge a program is by the orders received.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:30 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
DOD appears to be doing 'reality TV' now, most of the new programs seem quite practical, a big change from the fantasy of the past.

It's funny how the reality that the mother countries can't afford A400M spawns the fantasy that the DoD doesn't have to weigh fiscal or political considerations.

JayinKitsap wrote:
Just like with commercial planes, the best way to judge a program is by the orders received.

We can't even do that with A400M because as above the order book has orders serving as place holders in it.

ES is openly trying to sell off its slots, and DE made one attempt at that earlier.

Now that Pax Merkel is winding down and the Greens are on the rise ( ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/worl ... erkel.html ) no one can tell what the future holds.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:09 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -c-458728/ says:

L3 Technologies has been awarded a $500 million contract for a major avionics upgrade of 176 Lockheed Martin C-130H tactical transports flown by the US Air National Guard and US Air Force (USAF) Reserve Command.

The fixed-price-incentive-firm contract is for engineering and manufacturing development through production, as well as training and logistics. The upgrade work is planned to be performed predominantly in Waco, Texas, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2029.

Another opportunity to see DoD buy A400Ms seems to be going by the boards.

The avionics upgrade is part of a larger C-130 modernisation programme. National Guard and USAF Reserve C-130Hs will also have Collins Aerospace NP2000 propeller systems added and receive a “Series 3.5 upgrade” to their Rolls-Royce (R-R) T56 engines.

Incorporating the NP2000 propeller will help the C-130H’s operational performance, while also reducing maintenance time and cost. R-R says the T56 upgrade should allow the type's engines to operate at lower and higher temperatures, while extending the lifespan of parts and improving reliability by 22%.

Guess it's cheaper to upgrade avionics, propellers and engines on C130H than ask Congress for A400Ms at $170m each.

I wonder if A400M will still be in production when the last C-130H upgrade rolls off the line in 2029?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JJT
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:16 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/l3-wins-500m-contract-to-upgrade-avionics-on-176-c-458728/ says:

L3 Technologies has been awarded a $500 million contract for a major avionics upgrade of 176 Lockheed Martin C-130H tactical transports flown by the US Air National Guard and US Air Force (USAF) Reserve Command.

The fixed-price-incentive-firm contract is for engineering and manufacturing development through production, as well as training and logistics. The upgrade work is planned to be performed predominantly in Waco, Texas, and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2029.

Another opportunity to see DoD buy A400Ms seems to be going by the boards.

The avionics upgrade is part of a larger C-130 modernisation programme. National Guard and USAF Reserve C-130Hs will also have Collins Aerospace NP2000 propeller systems added and receive a “Series 3.5 upgrade” to their Rolls-Royce (R-R) T56 engines.

Incorporating the NP2000 propeller will help the C-130H’s operational performance, while also reducing maintenance time and cost. R-R says the T56 upgrade should allow the type's engines to operate at lower and higher temperatures, while extending the lifespan of parts and improving reliability by 22%.

Guess it's cheaper to upgrade avionics, propellers and engines on C130H than ask Congress for A400Ms at $170m each.

I wonder if A400M will still be in production when the last C-130H upgrade rolls off the line in 2029?



Hahaha....! Sorry, but that’s good! You really know how to put the boot in Revelation.....! I agree with many / most of your posts in this thread.

And that’s from someone who loves the A400M as an aircraft.

Despite some logical points that could be thrown up as to why the USMC / National Guard and USAF Reserve Command could replace the ageing C-130H’s with A400M’s....as has been stated before, on top of the whole Berry Compliant umbrella of military and defence purchases, it’s also the underlying current (and I believe part of the US psyche) for a reluctance to buy anything but, American made. I cannot ever see that changing.

The market for the A400M does not lie with the US....that’s my opinion anyway.
 
Noray
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:22 am

Revelation wrote:
It's kind of like going to see a fantasy film in a theater, where willingful suspension of belief is required for one to enjoy the film.


Fantasy stories like "the US Navy is not in the transport business" (while it actually operates an air transport fleet), or "the A400M was a contender to replace C-130Hs of the US Air National Guard and US Air Force (USAF) Reserve Command" (which is too far-fetched).

One day I'll open a fish trade and sell all the red herrings found in this forum.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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