RAF apparently has a boat airdrop requirement.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... apability/

Boat drop would be a nice capability add for the A400M as they are dropping the Herc fleet. A lot of reach.

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.

There's no reason to invoke US politicians, let alone what Americans say (pick your own source, whatever, the rates are what they are/were) about how pathetic the readiness rates are/were/might be. My point is not to castigate the services/aircraft itself, just that it is uniform across all German systems, due to funding. Let's not get into politics please.

If the maintenance schedule for the aircraft are not 'fair' or lead to a large amount being down then that is however a poor reflection on the schedules themselves. The Luftwaffe was once able to maintain relatively high maintenance aircraft requiring a lot of hours per flight hour such as the F-4 quite effectively, so I just assume it is an ongoing issue of the funding for the parts/MRO facilities.

While not really defending the lack of funding for the German defence force, I can understand the lack of resource when an enormous amount of money was needed to integrate East and West.

Now 30 odd years later, that limited funding momentum is hard to break.

bt

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.

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.

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.

Just for those scoring at home, the first and most forceful public of the US demands for increased Euro defense spending was by SECDEF Gates, during the Obama Administration.

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.

Here is the latest system readiness report: https://www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/50876 ... t-data.pdf
I doubt a significant number of other democracies provide more information to the public.

Readiness has improved in recent years but, assuming peace time, it’ll be at least another 5 years to get back to the level of the early 2000s. The main problems are lack of human resources in the Bundeswehr (especially expert logisticians) and too much past outsourcing of maintenance to the industry. The A400M is a great airplane but I’m somewhat sympathetic with the Luftwaffe in this case, and with whoever sent the tweet.

The root cause for maintenance issues is not lack of overall funding. That would be absurd for a military that recently budgeted more than France and the UK (source: https://www.globalfirepower.com/defense ... budget.php). Tabloid writers and foreign “experts” - like Kyle - that are far removed from the Bundeswehr, like to use the money argument because it fits their political ideology and it’s easy to understand for their readers.

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?

On December 1st, an A400M of the French Air and Space Force took 80 parachutists over 4000 Kilometers from Toulouse, France to Yamassoukrou, Côte Ivoire, where they performed a simultaneous automatic jump. The Armée de Terre is now able to deploy an equipped and operational airborne unit over 4,000 km in less than 48 hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_cjKk9bivI

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?

I don’t think they actually did that many boat drops, though the training requirements will, yes, be a challenge to sustain. In the aggregate, it will also wear out/drive up A400M sustainment costs quickly (not just the boat drop taskings).

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?

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?

Because keeping the Hercs would be cheaper as the intent is to decrease sustainment/operating/training costs via reduction in types, not to buy another type to replace them?

I think it will be fascinating to track how this works out down the road over the next 5-10 years for the Brit’s.

The British order has always been somewhat small for a country that takes pride in its ability to operate around the globe. Wouldn't it be significantly cheaper to order new C-130J as a replacement for the worn-out ones, though?

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.

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.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/confirm ... ransports/

Allocation of £750 million for A400M procurement from 2028/2029.

Have Airbus been watching the latest James Bond film?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a400m-t ... irst-time/

Yes, I know that a US C-130 has done something similar, however this perception/list of things stated that the C-130 can do, that the A400M cannot, has diminished even more.

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.

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.

Unless Kazakhstan gets sanctioned as well, I doubt the order will be cancelled.

If you need something bigger than the C-130, A400M is probably the only western made choice, right?

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

JerseyFlyer wrote:

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

You wanted to link this I guess?

https://www.aero.de/news-42280/Zwei-Air ... andet.html

This Sentinel 2 satellite image from today still shows the two Turkish A400Ms in the same spot where they have been sitting for more than a month.
https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browse ... TRUE_COLOR

Meanwhile, Turkey has just received its 10th and final A400M and is the first member of the original consortium that has completed its A400M fleet.
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/ekonomi/cum ... di-6728447 (Turkish)

ReverseFlow wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

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

You wanted to link this I guess?

https://www.aero.de/news-42280/Zwei-Air ... andet.html

Yes - thanks

South Korea is looking to buy airlifters. Expected to be offered are A400M, Hercules and KC-390. Can Spain discount the excess A400M it ordered or even offer a swap including SK trainers as reported in the second link below?

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defe ... pabilities
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/spain-c ... -trainers/

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.

As did it's tactical capabilities (Africa) and strategic transport roles (Afghanistan, TATL weapon transports).

Nations paid a lot, opposition parties all over Europe were stumbling over each other targeting its budgets, but have become quiet

Having this fleet available in Europe is proving worth it every dime.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... NO874-1006).jpg

Notice how the SH and A400M are flying pretty much straight and level with respect to each other. Demonstrates just how fast the A400M is, and hints at the potential for high speed turboprops in all sectors of aviation if people would just get over the non-sensical anti-open rotor bias.

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

Extensive low Level flying of German a400M took place today. Saw it on adsb.

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

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

Given the article quote an ADS manager inTechnology, Innvovation and Development for a confirmation that her company target to offer the product before year end; on top they claim it to be designed in Madrid (ADS spanish DO are in Getafe, Madrid downtown) I believe that's an in house solution.

The AKKA plan seems weird to me anyway, they just can't develop an optimized kit without an awful lot of information about the destination aircraft (CG, weight and balance during the release, needed flight profile for the release and so on), they would need to work hand in hands with ADS for this to happen.
And if they go by doing a standard kit that could be used on any transport A/C with rear ramp, mounted and fixed through palet system they'll finish by droping a ridiculously low volume of water just due to the weight and CG shift limits of palets handling systems.

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.

15th report of the federal german ministry of defence (PDF) [German]

Generally, the capability and reliability still leave room for improvement although measures are being implemented that should help both aspects. MSN105 will remain with Airbus as a temporary test aircraft until Q2 2024. 2-3 further deliveries are expected in 2022.

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.

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.

You still need to have your crews fly them often to retain their currency on the platform. You can fly holes in the sky doing nothing and effectively wasting money, or, you can use them for refueling, get the same hours on the frame and also keeping up to date.

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.

Germany joined the pooled A330 MRTT fleet some years ago, but we are getting off topic.

Germany, Norway join A330 MRTT pooled fleet

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

Official, Airbus has successfully tested a removable firefighting demonstrator kit on the A400M !
Some numbers, minimum operating height of 150ft, flight speeds as low as 125 knots and drops involving up to 20 tonnes of water from the current tank in less than 10 seconds.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-07-airbus-successfully-tests-firefighting-kit-on-a400m
and a nice short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9u5ZA3GP7k

This morning Jean Brice Drumont, Airbus VP of Military Aircraft was on french radio talking about this development. He clearly stated this is aimed as a complement solution to help the dedicated firefighters aircraft during fire events as it could not have the same type of performance (need landing to refill, not as good water patern due to drop from ramp having more perturbation than a door below the fuselage), but also mentionned a potential bonus that no other FF aircraft currently have : the possibility to explore water drop during the night.
He then poured cold water on the journalist's enthusiasm (he thought he'd see the kit in operation next summer) explaining there was significant challenges before seeing such kit in service. Customer must show interest (read : put money) for Airbus to go beyond the demonstration phase.

Technicaly I think this is a very good technical solution, as simple as possible without any modification of the original aircraft is the way to go to raise interest of all curent customer.
The difficulty will be with operators and crews I guess. Would some firefighting crew be trained on A400M, or A400M crew trained on firefighting activities ??

edit : Seeing MrBren beat me I see that it took me 40min to write this post

MrBren wrote:

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

Wasn't AKKA working on something like this, too?
Or is it the AKKA kit?

ReverseFlow wrote:

MrBren wrote:

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

Wasn't AKKA working on something like this, too?
Or is it the AKKA kit?

It's Airbus in house design.
I don't think AKKA proposal was very substanciated anyway, I said why some posts above.

Certainly a good complement, and would make sense just to buy a few.

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!

777 wrote:

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!

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.

If I saw correctly in the video the 2 openings were opened by hand. I suppose as this is a prototype it is just to prove the principle.
Perhaps on an evolution the loadmaster could open it from their station?

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?

No idea but would it be any different to an APC for instance?

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/783837510117145785/

This looks like a evolution of the system they have on the C295.

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?

I've read somewhere between 5-20min. Surely it depends of the type of filling truck/pump. Anyway it can't be complicated to add more filling ports to fill quicker when more trucks are available, and as far as the overfill is managed properly I can't see much risks associated with refill.

zeke wrote:

This looks like a evolution of the system they have on the C295.

A massive difference in concept is that C295 kits needs the frame to be modified as it drops by the belly.
A400M kit have discharge from the ramp to be adaptable on any existing A400M without modification.

RAF further extends operations;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-atl ... efuelling/

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.

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?

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?

68 from 7 countries, https://youtu.be/yVttp1kBQn8