Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Noray wrote:AngMoh wrote:To have such a tweet from the German Luftwaffe is exceptionally unprofessional. The text is absurd and will only backfire. We are not talking about Michael O'Leary from Ryanair complaining about 737 deliveries or Akbar Al Baker complaining about A350 paint. This is a supposedly professional army telling everyone on twitter they are not capable to perform their mission. Putin will be happy with this tweet.
I get the impression that the German Airforce can not get any plane airworthy. Lufthansa has no problems flying A340-300 at high utilisation while the low utilisation Luftwaffe A340-300's always seem to break whenever they had to fly Angela Merkel to an G7 or G20 meeting.
I don't think that Putin has to rely on tweets when it comes to counting A400Ms in Wunstorf. Even I am able to track most of their flights on the internet.mxaxai wrote:The German army is tightly controlled by the parliament, perhaps more so than in most other countries. With a new government coming into power in the next few weeks, public attention and pressure is likely to be more effective to gain additional funding than talks behind closed doors.
Also, the current defence minister AKK will lose her job anyway as soon as the new coalition forms a government. Nothing to lose in this respect through some unorthodox methods.texl1649 wrote:This is why they stopped publishing their mission capable rates a couple years ago, it was publicly too embarrassing. It's not the military's fault, they habitually underfund MRO/spares/maintenance across the navy/army/Luftwaffe, and have for decades. I think they only stopped publishing the data around 2018 (there is a thread somewhere on this site about it), but the stories go back quite some time. Here is one;
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ge ... ying-13748
Moot point. Not again.
These public reports had only been introduced a few years earlier by the then new defence minister von der Leyen with the purpose of getting public attention for the poor situation she had inherited from her predecessors. Then these reports were turned against her and against Germany (e.g. by conservative US publications like The National Interest and politicians like Donald Trump) which wasn't helpful at all, so von der Leyen stopped the publications she had started herself. Again, US conservatives are turning this against Germany, negating the existing will to improve.Chaostheory wrote:From what I'm told by my father in law, the out of action aircraft are due to maintenance checks (?structural) becoming due over a very short time period. This seems to stem from the rush of deliveries which occurred 3 or so years ago.
Calendar-based maintenance schemes could be part of the problem; in my understanding the Luftwaffe has asked for some more flexibility there.
texl1649 wrote:
This is why they stopped publishing their mission capable rates a couple years ago, it was publicly too embarrassing. It's not the military's fault, they habitually underfund MRO/spares/maintenance across the navy/army/Luftwaffe, and have for decades. I think they only stopped publishing the data around 2018 (there is a thread somewhere on this site about it), but the stories go back quite some time. Here is one;
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ge ... ying-13748
vr773 wrote:texl1649 wrote:
This is why they stopped publishing their mission capable rates a couple years ago, it was publicly too embarrassing. It's not the military's fault, they habitually underfund MRO/spares/maintenance across the navy/army/Luftwaffe, and have for decades. I think they only stopped publishing the data around 2018 (there is a thread somewhere on this site about it), but the stories go back quite some time. Here is one;
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ge ... ying-13748
The underfunding argument is analytically lazy and I wouldn't base my opinion on literally anything Kyle Mikozami writes.
I think there were two main reasons why it was decided to stop publishing detailed numbers for major weapon systems: (1) the readiness definitions applied for the various systems were complicated to understand and the media oversimplified it in their reporting - as one would expect; and (2) it's pretty unusual for a military to publish detailed readiness numbers about weapon systems in the first place. The error was not to stop publishing them, it was to start doing it in the first place.
Noray wrote:Moot point. Not again.
These public reports had only been introduced a few years earlier by the then new defence minister von der Leyen with the purpose of getting public attention for the poor situation she had inherited from her predecessors. Then these reports were turned against her and against Germany (e.g. by conservative US publications like The National Interest and politicians like Donald Trump) which wasn't helpful at all, so von der Leyen stopped the publications she had started herself. Again, US conservatives are turning this against Germany, negating the existing will to improve.
texl1649 wrote:vr773 wrote:texl1649 wrote:
This is why they stopped publishing their mission capable rates a couple years ago, it was publicly too embarrassing. It's not the military's fault, they habitually underfund MRO/spares/maintenance across the navy/army/Luftwaffe, and have for decades. I think they only stopped publishing the data around 2018 (there is a thread somewhere on this site about it), but the stories go back quite some time. Here is one;
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ge ... ying-13748
The underfunding argument is analytically lazy and I wouldn't base my opinion on literally anything Kyle Mikozami writes.
I think there were two main reasons why it was decided to stop publishing detailed numbers for major weapon systems: (1) the readiness definitions applied for the various systems were complicated to understand and the media oversimplified it in their reporting - as one would expect; and (2) it's pretty unusual for a military to publish detailed readiness numbers about weapon systems in the first place. The error was not to stop publishing them, it was to start doing it in the first place.
That’s belied by the fact that others certainly do it, in democratic countries.
https://www.airforcemag.com/breaking-do ... able-rate/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... nificantly
For a country not at war, why wouldn’t information be made public, given the public is paying for the weapons and their maintenance? Sustainability/maintenance costs are always a factor in acquisition decisions, so it’s a bit amazing to hear such a ‘we can’t share that info’ attitude about it unless it is driven by…well, a self interest in not disclosing it.
I’m don’t know anything about Kyle, and again feel free to cite sources that say…quite the opposite of those I provide.
texl1649 wrote:Boat drop would be a nice capability add for the A400M as they are dropping the Herc fleet. A lot of reach.
Kiwirob wrote:texl1649 wrote:Boat drop would be a nice capability add for the A400M as they are dropping the Herc fleet. A lot of reach.
The question is will they have enough A400's to take over all the taskings the C130 was used for? Will they need to buy more A400's?
In a table detailing current and future Ministry of Defence expenditure, an entry is listed mentioning that the UK plans to purchase additional A400M Atlas transport aircraft later this decade.
An entry in the table under the heading ‘A400m Additional Purchase’ reads “Additional purchase of A400M planned for the late 2020s”. The increased fleet capacity was also hinted at in the Defence Command Paper, more on that below.
art wrote:UK interested in more A400M in a few years?In a table detailing current and future Ministry of Defence expenditure, an entry is listed mentioning that the UK plans to purchase additional A400M Atlas transport aircraft later this decade.
An entry in the table under the heading ‘A400m Additional Purchase’ reads “Additional purchase of A400M planned for the late 2020s”. The increased fleet capacity was also hinted at in the Defence Command Paper, more on that below.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-plan ... -aircraft/
With all RAF Hercs going soon, why not consider buying some C-390? With FAB having cut its order back, wouldn't these be a better Herc replacement than A400M and also be available at a bargain price?
The Ministry of Defence has published its tenth annual summary of the defence equipment plan, the report contains references to the purchase of more A400M transport aircraft.
Grizzly410 wrote:Given UK original order was 25, later reduced to 22 it makes sense there is a small capacity gap needing to be fullfiled.
As Herc fleet is confirmed going to retirement (EDIT : IIRC, I feel like saying something stupid there, but kind of remember that) the question between topping up the existing fleet or introduce a new type seems trivial and largely in A400M favor.
After Kazakh and Indonesia order we know Airbus DS would welcome a 3 small top up with open arms. But in the case of UK 5 wouldn't be crazy at all, and its a "launch customer" then should have an interesting offer moneywise. For me it's more or less a done deal sometine soon.
Problem is, even with those modest new orders the program remains concerning, the current 8/year rate looks like an absolute minimum for it to go on. The recent export contracts are welcome, it demonstrate market penetration, but much more are needed.
tomcat wrote:Grizzly410 wrote:Given UK original order was 25, later reduced to 22 it makes sense there is a small capacity gap needing to be fullfiled.
As Herc fleet is confirmed going to retirement (EDIT : IIRC, I feel like saying something stupid there, but kind of remember that) the question between topping up the existing fleet or introduce a new type seems trivial and largely in A400M favor.
After Kazakh and Indonesia order we know Airbus DS would welcome a 3 small top up with open arms. But in the case of UK 5 wouldn't be crazy at all, and its a "launch customer" then should have an interesting offer moneywise. For me it's more or less a done deal sometine soon.
Problem is, even with those modest new orders the program remains concerning, the current 8/year rate looks like an absolute minimum for it to go on. The recent export contracts are welcome, it demonstrate market penetration, but much more are needed.
Given the strong ties between Kazakhstan and Russia, I wonder if the Kazakh order is not at risk of being cancelled.
JerseyFlyer wrote:You wanted to link this I guess?Two Turkish A400s are stuck in Ukraine:
"Turkey is hoping for an opportunity to fly two of its Airbus A400M out of Kyiv. The military transporters had landed at Boryspil Airport with relief supplies shortly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since the closure of airport park the planes on an outside position."
https://www.aero.de/news-42293/Lufthans ... nchen.html
ReverseFlow wrote:JerseyFlyer wrote:You wanted to link this I guess?Two Turkish A400s are stuck in Ukraine:
"Turkey is hoping for an opportunity to fly two of its Airbus A400M out of Kyiv. The military transporters had landed at Boryspil Airport with relief supplies shortly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since the closure of airport park the planes on an outside position."
https://www.aero.de/news-42293/Lufthans ... nchen.html
https://www.aero.de/news-42280/Zwei-Air ... andet.html
https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/3755368/-airbus-trabaja-convertir-a400m-avion-apagafuegos
Grizzly410 wrote:Seems the Firefighting option mentionned to be explored in the Indonesia order press release last year is getting real and could be ready before the end of this year
Only found this source in spanish. Hopefully will be reported in english soon...https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/3755368/-airbus-trabaja-convertir-a400m-avion-apagafuegos
Such a modif should be already flight testing heavily for a certification this year, and I know it's not.
So I find the timeframe very optimistic to say the least. But at least it's moving forward
mxaxai wrote:Grizzly410 wrote:Seems the Firefighting option mentionned to be explored in the Indonesia order press release last year is getting real and could be ready before the end of this year
Only found this source in spanish. Hopefully will be reported in english soon...https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/3755368/-airbus-trabaja-convertir-a400m-avion-apagafuegos
Such a modif should be already flight testing heavily for a certification this year, and I know it's not.
So I find the timeframe very optimistic to say the least. But at least it's moving forward
Is this the AKKA development? https://www.akka-technologies.com/press ... efighters/
Or a different firefighting kit? If it is this one, it seems like you load it like any other cargo and release the water via the open cargo ramp. As there are no structural modifications to the aircraft itself, testing might be faster than, for example, the add-on fuel tanks for aerial refueling.
I also happened to discover that a reasonably large aerial firefighting conference is happening today in Nimes, France. Perhaps that's where the Spanish article got their news from. https://www.aerial-firefighting-europe.com/Homepage
According to AIRBUS' current plans, the certification and qualification activities regarding SOC 3 will be delayed.
These are not expected to be completed until November 2022 with the final Certificate of Design (CoD). The subsequent recognition of the SOC 3 standard by the program nations is not expected until the third quarter of 2023 at the earliest.
The "DIRCM Integration" project is currently subject to delays/impairments, among other things related to the COVID 19 pandemic. The prototype integration of the DIRCM system in the first German A400M (MSN105) is almost complete and demonstration flights are scheduled to start in May 2022. The serial installation in the fleet is planned in a second step after successful prototype integration and operational testing.
Once the necessary prerequisites have been met, it is expected that the first tactical A400M with DIRCM system could be available in the A400M fleet for operational use from around 2025.
To ensure engine maintenance, an extension of the Engine Support Contract (ESC) until mid-2022 was commissioned in December 2021. Negotiations on the successor contract to the Future Engine Support Contract (FESC) are proving extremely difficult, jeopardizing a seamless transition after ESC runs out.
keesje wrote:It is becoming clear the A400M is extensively used these days in the European theatre as a tanker. For the various border patrols, supporting a variety of missions.
While having every A400M basically suitable for this tanker role costed extra, it's paying off today.
kitplane01 wrote:I'm so willing to be educated. But I thought that the A400 operating expenses were very high. So I wonder if an A330 MRTT might not cost less to operate per hour. I understand that a A330MRTT is a larger plane, but one can buy parts and maintenence for it at airliner pricing, and not A400 pricing.
The UK, France, Spain, and the European Defense Agency all have A330 MRTTs. Germany does not.
MrBren wrote:Wasn't AKKA working on something like this, too?Airbus has successfully tested the A400M as a firefighter jet with about 20 tonnes of water.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-07-airbus-successfully-tests-firefighting-kit-on-a400m
ReverseFlow wrote:MrBren wrote:Wasn't AKKA working on something like this, too?Airbus has successfully tested the A400M as a firefighter jet with about 20 tonnes of water.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-07-airbus-successfully-tests-firefighting-kit-on-a400m
Or is it the AKKA kit?
777 wrote:As it is a self contained system, I would almost expect you could have a 2nd full one waiting and just unload the empty one and load the full one.It would be very interesting to understand how the A400M is supposed to work as firefighter: what are the equipments required to refill the water tank? What's the overall turnaround time between two water drops?
Very promising development, BTW!
ReverseFlow wrote:As it is a self contained system, I would almost expect you could have a 2nd full one waiting and just unload the empty one and load the full one.
777 wrote:No idea but would it be any different to an APC for instance?ReverseFlow wrote:As it is a self contained system, I would almost expect you could have a 2nd full one waiting and just unload the empty one and load the full one.
I don't know the practical implications of loading a 20t system into the A400 in a quick and secure way. Is it realistic?
777 wrote:ReverseFlow wrote:As it is a self contained system, I would almost expect you could have a 2nd full one waiting and just unload the empty one and load the full one.
I don't know the practical implications of loading a 20t system into the A400 in a quick and secure way. Is it realistic?
zeke wrote:This looks like a evolution of the system they have on the C295.
Grizzly410 wrote:Year 2022 saw 10 deliveries of A400M to customers :
1 last for Turkey, 1 for Belgium (1 left); 2 for Spain, 2 for France, 3 for Germany and 1 for UK (1 left).
For the long time readers of 400M threads there’s two noticeable news in those deliveries :
- the UK one is MSN56 that Airbus Defence&Space used for around 4 years as Flight Test aircraft
- one of the French is not exactly brand new either, though without more flight hours than the build process requires, it’s MSN75. A specimen ADS took out of the production line after structural assembly and stowed long term since mid-2018 (IRC for the date)
Note that for housekeeping purpose I’m notifying mods on this post as it’s named for 2022, asking if it makes sense to close it and start a 2023 thread given the low activity.
Personally I’d rather rename this one like it was before “A400M update” and let it follow its slow course.
aumaverick wrote:Grizzly410 wrote:Year 2022 saw 10 deliveries of A400M to customers :
1 last for Turkey, 1 for Belgium (1 left); 2 for Spain, 2 for France, 3 for Germany and 1 for UK (1 left).
For the long time readers of 400M threads there’s two noticeable news in those deliveries :
- the UK one is MSN56 that Airbus Defence&Space used for around 4 years as Flight Test aircraft
- one of the French is not exactly brand new either, though without more flight hours than the build process requires, it’s MSN75. A specimen ADS took out of the production line after structural assembly and stowed long term since mid-2018 (IRC for the date)
Note that for housekeeping purpose I’m notifying mods on this post as it’s named for 2022, asking if it makes sense to close it and start a 2023 thread given the low activity.
Personally I’d rather rename this one like it was before “A400M update” and let it follow its slow course.
What is the backlog now, 2?