Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Deepgreen
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:37 am

At least two A400Ms have been at Gatwick this morning, with ZM419 on finals now, from Brize Norton. Is there an exercise underway?
 
pugman211
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:54 pm

Not sure, but I've seen plenty of A400M flights lately from Brize Norton to Prestwick with the occasional touch and go in random aerodomes. Search ASCOT on FR24 for flights
 
Deepgreen
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:52 pm

Many thanks. The first one today was heading north from a take-off from LGW, while the second did several go-arounds there before heading to Southampton then Bournemouth to do the same, then landed at Bournemouth. Perhaps runway equipment calibration testing?
 
Noray
Topic Author
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:35 pm

Deepgreen wrote:
At least two A400Ms have been at Gatwick this morning, with ZM419 on finals now, from Brize Norton. Is there an exercise underway?

Pilot training, I guess. RAF Brize Norton usually announce these flights on their Twitter account.

In this case they wrote:
This am/pm, our A400M aircraft will be operating in the vicinity of Gatwick, Southampton, Bournemouth and Jersey, whilst engaged in essential training

These are necessary, routine, flights and not connected with RAF support to the UK's fight against Coronavirus
 
Noray
Topic Author
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:43 pm

A Flightglobal piece about How A400M Atlas spanned the globe during coronavirus response

The ongoing crisis in particular has marked a coming of age for the Airbus Defence & Space A400M, with counter-Covid-19 flights having been conducted by all its current operators: France, Germany, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey and the UK.
...
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:16 am

The Australian Government have released their 2020 Strategic and Force Structure plans. Was looking through and found the following interesting below quote regarding the C-130J fleet. The RAAF C-130Js are some of the oldest around having received their first aircraft in 1999. The current plan is for the RAAF to retire the C-130J around 2030 (not anywhere near NZ timelines for operating C-130s) so perhaps the A400M is a chance... Working against the A400M as a replacement for the C-130J though is the same statement, an expanded replacement fleet, used for the KC-30s. Given how new that fleet is I expect it will operate well into the 2030s and perhaps even 2040s before replacement.

Not sure what other options are available that would meet RAAF requirements other than either new C-130Js, some further updated C-130 model, the A400M or a new as yet unannounced USAF replacement transport aircraft in the 20t to 40t payload range (seems very unlikely). The C-2 doesn’t have the rough field capability required, KC-390 is a poor fit and obviously they aren’t buying used or Russian/Chinese aircraft.

2020 Force Structure Plan

...

An expanded replacement fleet for the C-130J Hercules aircraft to improve the lift capacity of the ADF in response to growing demand for these assets;

An expanded replacement fleet for the KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft, including crewed and/or remotely piloted platforms, to enhance the capacity of the Air Force to operate at long range and sustain operations.

...

https://www.defence.gov.au/StrategicUpd ... e_Plan.pdf
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:25 am

Ozair wrote:
The Australian Government have released their 2020 Strategic and Force Structure plans. Was looking through and found the following interesting below quote regarding the C-130J fleet. The RAAF C-130Js are some of the oldest around having received their first aircraft in 1999. The current plan is for the RAAF to retire the C-130J around 2030 (not anywhere near NZ timelines for operating C-130s) so perhaps the A400M is a chance... Working against the A400M as a replacement for the C-130J though is the same statement, an expanded replacement fleet, used for the KC-30s. Given how new that fleet is I expect it will operate well into the 2030s and perhaps even 2040s before replacement.

Not sure what other options are available that would meet RAAF requirements other than either new C-130Js, some further updated C-130 model, the A400M or a new as yet unannounced USAF replacement transport aircraft in the 20t to 40t payload range (seems very unlikely). The C-2 doesn’t have the rough field capability required, KC-390 is a poor fit and obviously they aren’t buying used or Russian/Chinese aircraft.

2020 Force Structure Plan

...

An expanded replacement fleet for the C-130J Hercules aircraft to improve the lift capacity of the ADF in response to growing demand for these assets;

An expanded replacement fleet for the KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft, including crewed and/or remotely piloted platforms, to enhance the capacity of the Air Force to operate at long range and sustain operations.

...

https://www.defence.gov.au/StrategicUpd ... e_Plan.pdf


Interesting. How old is the youngest C-130Js?
I wonder if keeping the youngest and supplementing with A400Ms could be an option?
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:15 am

Slug71 wrote:
Interesting. How old is the youngest C-130Js?
I wonder if keeping the youngest and supplementing with A400Ms could be an option?

The RAAF C-130Js were all delivered between 1999 and 2001 so they are all a similar age. The fleet has seen extensive use in the Middle East, around Asia and numerous global exercises so I expect by the time the fleet gets to the late 2020s it will have been well used and ready for retirement. They have all been upgraded with satellite comms with a sub fleet receiving KA band high speed satcom, and even recently tested operating UAVs from within the cargo hold in flight via the satcom antenna. All have Mode 5 IFF and the RAAF have tested the integration of a Litening TGT pod on the wing. The Litening pods are left over as the RAAF withdraws the classic Hornet for the F-35 and could potentially be put to good use.

There is little chance the RAAF will operate a mixed C-130J/A400M fleet, it would be one or the other. The RAAF has the C-17 above and the C-27J below this size range so you would expect they will go for something similar in size for specific tactical rough field work. Whatever is acquired would be rapidly integrated over a two to three year period similar to other new military aviation capabilities.

Taking end of line A400s in the late 2020s makes a lot of sense, potentially eight to ten aircraft at a reasonable price and with all promised A400 capabilities delivered they would be a good replacement. There may be a few small issues operating in and out of some of the smaller regional airfields around the South Pacific, noting the A400 and C-130J wingspans are very close, but that is also what the C-27J is for.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:39 am

Ozair wrote:
There is little chance the RAAF will operate a mixed C-130J/A400M fleet, it would be one or the other. The RAAF has the C-17 above and the C-27J below this size range.

Actually I think a mixed C-130J and A400M would be the only way the A400M joins the RAAF.

The ADF will be getting a massive budget increase in coming years. This means extra airlift is required both tactical and strategic. As the C-17 is out of production the only way to increase strategic lift capacity is to purchase the A400M for its large size. The A400M would act as a C-17 supplement allowing the C-17 to concentrate on the longer distance flights.

As the RAAF would use the A400M mainly as a strategic airlifter then the C-2 from Japan would make a good option.

If the A400M was purchased without the C-130J then the RAAF would probably need additional C-27J aircraft for the light jobs.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:20 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Ozair wrote:
There is little chance the RAAF will operate a mixed C-130J/A400M fleet, it would be one or the other. The RAAF has the C-17 above and the C-27J below this size range.

Actually I think a mixed C-130J and A400M would be the only way the A400M joins the RAAF.

The ADF will be getting a massive budget increase in coming years. This means extra airlift is required both tactical and strategic. As the C-17 is out of production the only way to increase strategic lift capacity is to purchase the A400M for its large size. The A400M would act as a C-17 supplement allowing the C-17 to concentrate on the longer distance flights.

As the RAAF would use the A400M mainly as a strategic airlifter then the C-2 from Japan would make a good option.

If the A400M was purchased without the C-130J then the RAAF would probably need additional C-27J aircraft for the light jobs.

The RAAF’s history of acquiring and operating aircraft doesn’t match with your suggestion. The C-130Js when replaced will be 30 years old, consistent with how long the RAAF want to operate aircraft and have previously operated C-130 aircraft. The C-130Hs served right around the 30 year mark although spent far less time on ops comparatively than the C-130Js. The C-130Es served approximately a similar timeframe, arriving in the late 1960s and replaced by the Js in the late 90s.

The C-17s aren’t going anywhere and with eight aircraft they have a large and sustainable fleet that remains in sync with the USA. Additionally the C-27Js have taken over a lot of the regional work and are right sized for that mission. The A400M would then have the payload and range for the tactical mission.

The RAAF doesn’t need more strategic lift as the C-17s and KC-30s have very taken that from the C-130s today. The 2020 Defence Plan refocuses the efforts of the ADF around the regional area and so more strategic lift isn’t what is being sought. The 2020 Force Structure Plan is very clear the RAAF are looking for a replacement and expansion, not to keep the capability. In 2026 when you are looking to replace the C-130J fleet do you buy the same airframe you are retiring or do you look to upgrade the capability? A mixed fleet unnecessarily complicates sustainment of an already diverse military transport fleet. The A400M would allow the RAAF to do most of the things it does with the C-130J and a few additional things on top such as transport the new Boxer AFV. Neither C-130J nor A400M will be able to transport whatever wins the Australian IFV competition currently between the KF41 and the AS21.

The alternative to the A400M is another C-130 upgrade but I doubt that is going to happen in the timeframe the RAAF is looking at and I can’t see enough improvement available over the existing aircraft to warrant it. I also doubt the USAF will start a new transport program to replace the C-130J before 2030, there are too many other acquisition priorities.

Of course if I was the RAAF I would make it clear the KC-390, C-2 and C-130J are all still very good platforms and really push Airbus on the A400M price. The RAAF is a blue chip customer and could prompt additional sales.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:14 am

Ozair wrote:
The C-17s aren’t going anywhere and with eight aircraft they have a large and sustainable fleet that remains in sync with the USA.

The C-17's are 12 years old and have heavy usage for their age. The biggest concern is what will be available to replace them once they near 30 years old. The KC-30 was bought with the intention of reducing the hours on the C-17 fleet.

C-27J: 7.5t to 1800nm with 30t MTOW
C-130J: 15t to 1800nm with 70t MTOW
A400M: 30t to 2400nm with 141t MTOW
C-2: 36t to 2400nm with 141t MTOW
C-17: 70t to 2400nm with 265t MTOW

This shows the large size difference and fully justifies a C-130J and A400m purchase. The A400m dwarfs the C-130J and the costs of operating an extra type will easily be covered. The aircraft are very evenly spaced with the exception of the C-2 and A400m having the same size.

For the strategic role getting to the mainland US with a single stop in Hawaii is a critical benchmark at around 4100nm. The C-2 is vastly more capable than the A400m here.

A400m: 13t to 4100nm
C-2: 20t to 4100nm
C-17: 35t to 4100nm

If the RAAF sees these strategic flights increasing significantly then a C-2 purchase would be the only way to reduce hours on the C-17 fleet. However if the RAAF sees a huge increase in regional work then the A400M becomes the best option as the C-17 will no longer have to see a rough runway.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:19 pm

I would not be surprised if Australia stuck with the C-130J, much like the USAF. Basically every competition so far has shown that the best replacement for a C-130 is a C-130. The A400M & C-2 work best for customers that want / need something larger without operating the C-17 - but Australia already has the C-17 and KC-30 for strategic transport.

I also don't see any additional sales resulting from a sale to Australia. The primary challenges for the A400M have been cost, politics and reliability. None of those would change, except perhaps spare parts availability in the Asia-Pacific region. Unless of course Australia wants to donate one or two to Indonesia, which would solve a few financing problems.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Ozair wrote:
The C-17s aren’t going anywhere and with eight aircraft they have a large and sustainable fleet that remains in sync with the USA.

The C-17's are 12 years old and have heavy usage for their age. The biggest concern is what will be available to replace them once they near 30 years old.

There is plenty of life left in the C-17s and the RAAF expect to operate them long after both the KC-30 and C-130J are gone. Evidence of this is in the Force Structure plan where no replacement was mentioned yet replacements are now planned for the KC-30 and C-130J fleet. As to what they replace it with, I expect by 2045 the USAF will have a new strategic transport program and the RAAF would be a likely export customer. Alternatively the RAAF will piggyback on a USAF C-17 life extension program should they go that way.

RJMAZ wrote:
The KC-30 was bought with the intention of reducing the hours on the C-17 fleet.

LOL, no mate they weren't. If for the simple fact that the KC-30s were ordered before the C-17s were.

The A330 MRTT was selected in April 2004 to fulfil Project AIR 5402 for five aircraft equipped with wing-mounted pods for hose and drogue refuelling and a fuselage centreline refuelling boom. The acquisition contract for the aircraft was signed with then EADS CASA in December 2004.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... f-service/

In March 2006, Minister for Defence Brendan Nelson announced that the government had decided to purchase three C-17s and take out an option for a fourth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C- ... an_service

The KC-30 was the result of AIR 5402, a years long acquisition program for a replacements A2A refueler for the B707s. The C-17 was completely an impulse purchase, a project office for the acquisition wasn't even stood up until 2006. Additionally four of the aircraft only entered service from 2012 so the fleet is young and has a long life ahead.

RJMAZ wrote:
This shows the large size difference and fully justifies a C-130J and A400m purchase. The A400m dwarfs the C-130J and the costs of operating an extra type will easily be covered. The aircraft are very evenly spaced with the exception of the C-2 and A400m having the same size.

No one is denying there is a difference but with the C-27 at the low end and the C-17 at the high end, and the Australian Army retiring both the ASLAV and the M113 for new vehicles that cannot be transported in the C-130 it is a no brainer that the A400 is the natural fit. Sustaining an additional transport aircraft just wouldn't be worth the benefit that a combined C-130J/A400M fleet would provide the RAAF. The RAAF would not be acquiring the A400M for strategic capabilities, it would be for tactical purposes.

RJMAZ wrote:
For the strategic role getting to the mainland US with a single stop in Hawaii is a critical benchmark at around 4100nm. The C-2 is vastly more capable than the A400m here.

A400m: 13t to 4100nm
C-2: 20t to 4100nm
C-17: 35t to 4100nm

If the RAAF sees these strategic flights increasing significantly then a C-2 purchase would be the only way to reduce hours on the C-17 fleet. However if the RAAF sees a huge increase in regional work then the A400M becomes the best option as the C-17 will no longer have to see a rough runway.

You need to read the Strategic Update.

The Government has decided that under this new framework, defence planning will focus on our immediate region: ranging from the north-eastern Indian Ocean, through maritime and mainland South East Asia to Papua New Guinea and the South West Pacific.

https://www.defence.gov.au/StrategicUpd ... Update.pdf

There is no requirement for excessive C-17 flights to the US, nor for a C-2 that doesn't have a rough field capability. The C-17 also has done almost no rough field work while in RAAF service. The Tarin Kowt runway was paved in 2012 and, apart from the odd test and some antarctic flights, the C-17 fleet has stayed on surfaced runways.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:36 pm

Not sure how attractive an end-of-the-line A400M at any price really would be. Those engines will cost a fortune to maintain if operated for 30 years.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:29 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Not sure how attractive an end-of-the-line A400M at any price really would be. Those engines will cost a fortune to maintain if operated for 30 years.


There is more than likely contractual obligations for continued support.

I still think the is a possibility for a *M2*.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:10 pm

Slug71 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Not sure how attractive an end-of-the-line A400M at any price really would be. Those engines will cost a fortune to maintain if operated for 30 years.


There is more than likely contractual obligations for continued support.

I still think the is a possibility for a *M2*.


Sorry, what do you mean by *M2* ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Not sure how attractive an end-of-the-line A400M at any price really would be. Those engines will cost a fortune to maintain if operated for 30 years.


There is more than likely contractual obligations for continued support.

I still think the is a possibility for a *M2*.


Sorry, what do you mean by *M2* ?

I assume Slug is referring to an upgraded model but given there so are many A400Ms in service and so many left to come with the primary operators I don't know where the customer base would come from to justify a significant upgrade.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:08 am

Ozair wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Slug71 wrote:

There is more than likely contractual obligations for continued support.

I still think the is a possibility for a *M2*.


Sorry, what do you mean by *M2* ?

I assume Slug is referring to an upgraded model but given there so are many A400Ms in service and so many left to come with the primary operators I don't know where the customer base would come from to justify a significant upgrade.


Not a significant upgrade. But enough to require recertification and changes/improvements to the production line/process (including supply chain).
With IFVs and APCs increasing in weight and becoming so modular, I see the A400M as having limitations with its reduced payload. Granted it can still transport most.
I could be wrong, but it seems like some efficiency (in various aspects) may have been sacrificed to make some of the promised capabilities happen.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:23 am

Slug71 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:

Sorry, what do you mean by *M2* ?

I assume Slug is referring to an upgraded model but given there so are many A400Ms in service and so many left to come with the primary operators I don't know where the customer base would come from to justify a significant upgrade.


Not a significant upgrade. But enough to require recertification and changes/improvements to the production line/process (including supply chain).
With IFVs and APCs increasing in weight and becoming so modular, I see the A400M as having limitations with its reduced payload. Granted it can still transport most.
I could be wrong, but it seems like some efficiency (in various aspects) may have been sacrificed to make some of the promised capabilities happen.


Can´t see such an upgrade closing a business case without a huge order to pay for it, ie never happening unless the program survice deep in the 203x.

Once the planned capabilities certified and available to current customers it's not clear what Airbus will do (or not) to improve the program. IMO they have two ways :
- working on a low cost version ; there is some way to achieve that, but I'm afraid cost won't be lowered enough to be significant.
- doubling down on the "versatile" aspect and offer more and more capabilities ; picking solutions in the C295 portfolio, SAR, maritime patrol, firefighting could be relatively cheap.

Pure guessing as I don't know how much room is there for weights to be played with, but from Airbus commercial program experience (and A400M have been developped the same way as commercial program) there is different weight options available once program accumulate flight hours. I don't think it would be a problem to adapt Manual, Operation and Maintenance for a customer to trigger a sale.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
art
Posts: 3316
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:52 pm

What new customers are in the market for the A400M or something similar in load carrying capability/range?
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:12 pm

I’m not a diligent follower of this painful saga, but I think Airbus has already written down several billion euro’s in losses on the A400M, and after/once COVID is over I highly doubt an M2 version is likely to be high on their investment options in the mid 2020’s, or beyond. The A330 will be ramping down, and then they will need to invest in a replacement for the A320 in the 2030’s.

Ramping production rates down is not a good indicia of a bright future for the most expensive military transport on offer today;

“An increase to the Loss Making Contract provision on the programme, which may be material, is under assessment for the Full Year 2017 results which will be disclosed on 15 February 2018,” Airbus said in a statement.

“Since its inception in 2003, this programme has suffered not only from a number of operational issues but, more importantly, under a flawed contractual set-up and insufficient budget which resulted in significant losses for Airbus,” Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders said in the statement.

“We have a good chance to stop or at least reduce the bleeding now and deliver the capabilities our customers need,” he added.


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -airlifter
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:28 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I’m not a diligent follower of this painful saga, but I think Airbus has already written down several billion euro’s in losses on the A400M, and after/once COVID is over I highly doubt an M2 version is likely to be high on their investment options in the mid 2020’s, or beyond. The A330 will be ramping down, and then they will need to invest in a replacement for the A320 in the 2030’s.

The loss is almost certainly above 10 billion given in 2018 it was over 8 billion and that was just losses Airbus had written off.
Airbus has written off another €1.3bn (£1.2bn) on its troubled A400M military transport plane, bringing total losses on the project to more than €8bn.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43069630

Once you factor in all the additional rework required to early aircraft and additional losses declared since that 2018 statement the scale of dev overrun is immense.

art wrote:
What new customers are in the market for the A400M or something similar in load carrying capability/range?

Other than possibly the RAAF there have been a few potentials, such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and South Korea. The Saudis are a sanction issue from Germany but Indonesia and South Korea are both promising, albeit Indonesia is only after a couple of airframes and South Korea may take Spanish production slots. The Swiss and Czechs have also expressed interest but again I think the suggestion was with future German production slots or leasing German delivered aircraft.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Pure guessing as I don't know how much room is there for weights to be played with, but from Airbus commercial program experience (and A400M have been developped the same way as commercial program) there is different weight options available once program accumulate flight hours. I don't think it would be a problem to adapt Manual, Operation and Maintenance for a customer to trigger a sale.

I’m not sure how much long term weight options would be possible. It certainly isn’t unheard of for C1-30s to fly above MTOW, the AC/MC-130s regularly go out above their MTOW so I expect the same would be possible for the A400M but likely as with the C-130s result in a reduction in airframe life. As 36t payload now you would expect the A400M would need to go to 41t to meet the heavy IFV demand emerging. To get to 41t would be a 14% increase.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:26 pm

Ozair wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Pure guessing as I don't know how much room is there for weights to be played with, but from Airbus commercial program experience (and A400M have been developped the same way as commercial program) there is different weight options available once program accumulate flight hours. I don't think it would be a problem to adapt Manual, Operation and Maintenance for a customer to trigger a sale.

I’m not sure how much long term weight options would be possible. It certainly isn’t unheard of for C1-30s to fly above MTOW, the AC/MC-130s regularly go out above their MTOW so I expect the same would be possible for the A400M but likely as with the C-130s result in a reduction in airframe life. As 36t payload now you would expect the A400M would need to go to 41t to meet the heavy IFV demand emerging. To get to 41t would be a 14% increase.


As said it's really guesswork from my part but up to now Airbus D&S focused onto delivering the late contractual capability, not a single low hanging fruit have been picked yet.
Even if the active fleet is small and utilization is obviously way lower than pax A/C, the operational data feedback are flowing in (plus some customers have an airframe monitoring system, with dozen of sensors collecting a huge amount of datas) I think its safe to assume the margins could be reviewed, and dependng how conservative was the base assumptions identify some load increase without compromising the aiframe lifetime. A modest (cheap) weight reduction activity could help too.

That certainly doesn't fully close the gap (btw, I believe the current max payload is 37t, not 36t), there is still the possibility you mentionned to complete by abusing the frame and pay the price with the degradated lifetime limit. But that wouldn't be a 14% weight increase, maybe only half that.

Just to have an idea, do you know how much is the not unheard of MTOW abuse on C-130 ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:56 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
As said it's really guesswork from my part but up to now Airbus D&S focused onto delivering the late contractual capability, not a single low hanging fruit have been picked yet.
Even if the active fleet is small and utilization is obviously way lower than pax A/C, the operational data feedback are flowing in (plus some customers have an airframe monitoring system, with dozen of sensors collecting a huge amount of datas) I think its safe to assume the margins could be reviewed, and depending how conservative was the base assumptions identify some load increase without compromising the airframe lifetime. A modest (cheap) weight reduction activity could help too.

That certainly doesn't fully close the gap (btw, I believe the current max payload is 37t, not 36t), there is still the possibility you mentioned to complete by abusing the frame and pay the price with the degraded lifetime limit. But that wouldn't be a 14% weight increase, maybe only half that.

Sorry yes 37t not 36, that brings 41t (I feel like a magic number) a little closer though. For the MTOW increase I also wonder how often it would be needed by the current operators. I expect the A400M would space out before it weighs out for most missions, certainly the case for a lot of C-130 flights, but for that heavy IFV flight a MTOW increase would be valuable.

Grizzly410 wrote:
Just to have an idea, do you know how much is the not unheard of MTOW abuse on C-130 ?

I have seen a post and link here about a C-130 fight with a payload above 22t and perhaps 25t. In response to a question asked on a recent Fighter Pilot Podcast to the AC-130 pilot he stated the aircraft regularly goes out above MTOW with a waiver. I expect that is the ammunition load the aircraft expects to burn though (in combination with the heavy weapons and systems already installed on the airframe) and so their landing weight may be okay.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 am

What was the reason for the payload drop? I'm guessing either the airframe just came in over weight, mods for paratrooping, or engine parts revision maybe? Or combination of all?

I also wonder if this has had any impact on export sales?
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:11 am

Slug71 wrote:
What was the reason for the payload drop? I'm guessing either the airframe just came in over weight, mods for paratrooping, or engine parts revision maybe? Or combination of all?

I also wonder if this has had any impact on export sales?

What payload drop?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:13 am

Slug71 wrote:

I also wonder if this has had any impact on export sales?


Well it hasn't improved them, last export sale was Malaysia for 4 in 2005.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5082
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:35 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Slug71 wrote:

I also wonder if this has had any impact on export sales?


Well it hasn't improved them, last export sale was Malaysia for 4 in 2005.

The original export forecast was between 200 and 230 aircraft, so more than double what the paetners signed for. At this point in time I think Airbus would consider it a win if they secured 50 export orders for the entire program
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:32 pm

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
What was the reason for the payload drop? I'm guessing either the airframe just came in over weight, mods for paratrooping, or engine parts revision maybe? Or combination of all?

I also wonder if this has had any impact on export sales?

What payload drop?


It was originally supposed to be 40,000 kg IIRC, then later changed to 37,000 kg.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Newark727, NLCFFX and 21 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