Germany to pull out of the A400 program

[Rotax]

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/airbus-a400m-bundeswehr-fuerchtet-totalausfall-a-1091190.html (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/airbus-a400m-bundeswehr-fuerchtet-totalausfall-a-1091190.html)

The article above is in German. I've translated it myself - hoefully it's a bit better than Google Translate would have done. I've added a couple of notes of my own to it as well.


==========================================


Bundeswehr fear total cancellation


When the Berlin Air Show takes place at the beginning of June, the Luftwaffe will have a 10,000 sq. meter stand where they will be advertising themselves to be a high-tech Air Force.

The defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen will no doubt visit, but she will be looking to give the A400 a wide berth. From the beginning it has been a thorn in her side, always attracting negative headlines. A complete failure of the project can no longer be ruled out.

The ambitious project has been seen as problematic since its inception in the 90s. The delivery plan is years behind schedule; the Bundeswehr have only received three aircraft so far. Cracks have been discovered in the fuselage, which are expensive to repair.

Far more serious, though, is another defect. Recently, chips from the turbine blades have been found in the engines of the already delivered aircraft, and one engine has failed. Every 20 hours, the generators have to undergo costly checks, meaning normal flight operations are not possible.

The engine problems are ringing alarm bells. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the possibility of the total failure of the project is being discussed. In the event that the engine problems can't be overcome, the Luftwaffe will have to pull out of the A400 completely and find another transport aircraft [Editor's note - the Germans are already looking into buying 10 C-130Js as a stop-gap between the Transall and A400]

Possible redesign of the engine

The military are, however, discussing the worst-case scenario. It will only come into play if the engineers are not able to overcome the deficiencies in the engines. The project manager recently had to admit to Minister von der Leyen that due to the problems so far, she can't count on another airframe being delivered this year.

The confidential meeting in Koblenz revealed quite how serious the situation is. The project manager only revealed under questioning the disaster they were facing. He explained that a new design might be necessary: if this were the case then it would take years, rather than months, to come to fruition.

Airbus themselves don't seem tooo ptimistic either. Their CEO, Tom Enders recently told shareholders that the engine problems had been "very frustrating." This is an indication of how serious the situation is for Airbus, as it could have serious financial implications for them. Share prices are already falling.

One thing Enders didn’t mention to his shareholders: in Airbus they are also looking at the possibility of shelving the project. Meanwhile, the engineers are giving hope that they have at least found a temporary solution. It is not a certainty though.

If the fault rectification lasts too long, the Bundeswehr must have a rethink. The current fleet is already ancient and the Transall would be better off in a museum than on operations. They will be retired by 2020 at the latest. [ED – actually it’ll fly until the end of 2021]. Internal papers warn that fresh delays to the replacement aircraft will lead to “unmanageable capability gaps.”

Behind this half-sentence lies explosive power. In short, it means that without the A400, the Bundeswehr will not be operationally capable. Consequently they must keep an eye out for an off-the-shelf option.

A400: red lights all the way

The A400 is a considerable problem for the Minister. Hailed as a panacea to the failure-prone military procurement system, the abandonment of the project would be catastrophic. If she wishes to blame the disaster on her predecessor, then she must ask herself why the project wasn’t stopped sooner after her appointment at the end of 2013.

At least von der Leyen has a better idea of where the problems lie. In 2014 she had external experts look into the complicated procurement process. At the same time, risk analysis was completed to indicate where budget overruns or serious problems could occur. A traffic-light system was used, and for the A400, most of the lights were red.

This means that in the Ministry of Defence, the development of the engine problems will be closely monitored. Secretary of State, Katrin Suder, has already delicately suggested that there might be an indemnity claim. She is not counting on a reliable indication as to whether the problem is solvable until the summer, maybe even in 2017.

If the project is cancelled, the Bundeswehr will be fighting on two fronts. Firstly,they will have to complain to Airbus about the delays. Aribus knows “what they are playing for, as the six partner nations are legally well covered.” Secondly, they must quickly find an operational transport aircraft as an alternative to the Airbus.

Suder’s experts are more than a little mistrusting of anything Airbus say. Instead, they want a binding delivery timetable on paper. In the Ministry they will be keeping an eye on the SPD (Sozial Partie Deutschland) to ensure they are already thinking about convening an investigation committee for the A400 disaster.

The Minister must clarify the situation thisweek. The SPD, and also the opposition want answers from the defence committee as to how the project will proceed. The Defence expert from the Green Party, Agnieszka Brugger: “To simply wait and see whether Airbus can deliver, and throw more money into the A400 program, is in sharp contrast to the forceful promises of the Minister.”

===========================================


TL;DR

If the A400 is delayed much further, then the Germans might cancel their contract with Airbus. In any case, they are worried about a capability gap as the Transall goes out of service.

[Fly4Business]

They decided for a new transporter with completely new engines, a combination prone to trouble - unknown behavior of fuselage plus unknown engine vibrations - and they decided to trust consulting companies like the one UvdLeyen was raised from and they decided to leave details to engineers. They had all ingredients for a problem soup and they cooked it well. There is nothing surprising and if you look for the comments when the project started - many of them were right to the spot.

I doubt the contract will be cancelled, because of political pressure on all thrusters, but the finally have to play the alternatives card and purchase at least an interim fleet.

[Lonewolf_50]

While this is a sobering assessment, I look back to any number of doom and gloom revelations about ... the F-18 when it was new ... the V-22 more recently ... and see that they are doing well. The problem is that you have to pay for the fix to address the issues that have arisen. True for any program. Let's not sell the engineers short: I'll wager that they'll figure out the necessary fixes.

[melmothtw]

The Defence expert from the Green Party

An oxymoron, if ever I heard one.

[MACH2NUMBER]

This was always a politically driven programme. I think that the RAF never really wanted it and that a combination of C17/new C130 was the AT experts choice. Initially it was also conceived as a tanker, but would never have been able to fly high enough or fast enough.
Real irony that Germany might be first to pull the plug.

[Arclite01]

and typically we throw the baby out with the bathwater and start shedding C-130J before we have the replacement operational....................

Arc

[KenV]

Wow. C-130J would be a good replacement for the C-160s, but the whole point of the A400 was to be able to transport equipment that was outsize to the C-130/C-160. With C-17 out of production there is no longer an outsize alternative to A400.

And I gotta wonder where all the F-35 doom and gloom handwringers are on this. The A400 is a pretty low tech project and it's at least as far behind schedule and as over budget (in relative terms) as the F-35. And while there are lots of off-the-shelf in-production alternatives to the F-35, there are NONE for the A400.

[NutLoose]

I remember the fiasco that the Americans went through, with cost over runs, delays and threats to cancel their large military transport....................... that was the C-17, and look how that evolved.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-12/news/mn-34398_1_air-force-officials

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2014/September/Pages/OnceTroubledC-17ProgramProvidesAcquisitionsLessonsforToday.aspxhttp://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-12/news/mn-34398_1_air-force-officials

[KenV]

I remember the fiasco that the Americans went through, with cost over runs, delays and threats to cancel their large military transport....................... that was the C-17, and look how that evolved.Excellent point.

On the other hand, once Douglas actually started producing C-17s, the airplane had very few technical problems and the program got on track quickly and production did a steady ramp up. After starting A400 production the program has been faced with the loss of one airplane, lots of technical problems, a production halt, the inability to perform a critical mission (helo tanking), and now a severe production slow down with talk of needing redesign of the engine system. For the sake of Airbus and the European militaries counting on A400, I hope they can resolve these issues. And since there's no in-production alternative, they pretty well must fix them, no matter the cost.

[Avtur]

The confidential meeting in Koblenz revealed quite how serious the situation is.

Clearly not that confidential.

[Linedog]

Yet another EU cluster fcuk.

[melmothtw]

How has this got anything to do with the EU? The A400M is no more of an EU project than were the Tornado and Typhoon, though they didn't turn out to shabby.

[Rosevidney1]

If the news is bad enough I tend to believe it these days, unfortunately.

[E-Spy]

Reading a lot of parallels here across to the problems with NH90 and Tiger in the Bundeswehr

[Coochycool]

Perfectly prepared to line myself up in the cross hairs in search of enlightenment, so here goes.

C of G considerations aside, whats the problem with simply strapping on some nice neat 'n tidy, tried 'n tested turbofans a la Dornier 328 instead? Even if they can get the present powerplants to eventually behave, theres a lot to be said for greater commonality. And C-17 demonstrates that FOD ingestion isnt an issue.

However, it does seem mad to close the C-17 production line when it plus C-130J is surely more than sufficient trucking capability for most moderate air forces. And I imagine C-17 would be a fair bet for a tactical tanker too.

Yeah I know, politics.....but go on then, shoot.

[chopper2004]

I will be at ILA so it be interesting to see how things pan out......

There could also be scope for the Luftwaffe to join the Heavy Airlift Wing perhaps?

Cheers

[West Coast]

However, it does seem mad to close the C-17 production line when it plus C-130J is surely more than sufficient trucking capability for most moderate air forces. And I imagine C-17 would be a fair bet for a tactical tanker too.

Yeah I know, politics.....but go on then, shoot.

Mad in what way? Did you expect Boeing to keep the program running indefinitely?

[tdracer]

It costs massive money to keep an aircraft production line open, and C-17 sales dried up in spite of Boeing's best efforts to drum up sales. The last 10 C-17s built were effectively 'white tails' without committed buyers - basically a couple billion dollar bet by Boeing that they could sell them.
Last I heard, a year after the line was shut down, there was still one brand spanking new C-17 unsold.
Madness would have been to spend billions to keep the line open without buyers.

[NutLoose]

And it isn't just Boeing, but a myriad of subcontractors too, they would have to pay them for sitting idle.

[Tourist]

Out of interest, what does the US have planned to replace the C17s?

I know they will be around for a while, but with the time it takes to bring anything into service nowadays, I assume there are plans afoot?

[Coochycool]

Well I dont think its unreasonable that the C-17 line would not have been sitting half as idle if the Grizzly hadnt been in anyone's pipeline projection. I imagine plenty European nations must have looked at C-17 whilst still on the drawing board and thought it would be nice to have, but sadly too expensive.

Well look where we are now. Given the humble sales numbers that C-17 attained, is it not equally arguable that A400 will most likely end up in the same situation? Certainly if Germany cancels. Being different for the sake of being different (and supporting airbus jobs), both sides end up with eye wateringly expensive development costs which are tough to be profitable on.

Much though C-17 was initially deemed to be a stop gap solution for the RAF, if one follows subsequent history, is it not about time we started accepting the writing on the wall. Which is that we have become increasingly dependent on larger usually US led programmes (Airseeker/P8/F35) in pursuit of economies of scale.

Or shall we continue the Mod Procurement /MRA4 route :(

[Uncle Ginsters]

It seems someone else may be hedging their bets:

First Freefall Parachute Trial Sees RAF C-17 Jump into the Tactical Arena (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/first-freefall-parachute-trial-sees-raf-c17-jump-into-the-tactical-arena-25042016)

[dmcg]

Excellent Freudian slip at the end of the C17 article!

[KenV]

Out of interest, what does the US have planned to replace the C17s?Right now, absolutely nothing. Current USAF plans are to fly the C-17 for 100 hundred years. That's right, a full century. Not too outrageous an assumption given that the youngest B-52 is already over 60 years old and they will fly for at least another two decades. And whereas the B-52 was never designed for such a long life, the C-17 (especially the 40th and later ones) have a 30,000+ design service life and USAF is already working to ensure service life to three lifetimes, or over 90,000 hours. In other words, your great great grandchildren could be flying C-17s in the next century. So USAF is in no hurry to develop a replacement. Who knows, maybe they'll have transporter beams by then and there'll be no need for air transports. ;-)

And interestingly, while RAF leased C-17s as in interim mesure until enough A400s were acquired, that has changed. Until recently RAF C-17s were "offically" strictly strategic transports with no tactical mission. But RAF has used them tactically many times and is now making that official. All RAF C-17s have been upgraded to the latest block 19 standard (not even USAF has that.) and RAF will be using all of the C-17's capabilities for the first time. This is a big deal because the UK's airdrop equipment is not compatible with C-17, so a lot of new airdrop equipment will need to be purchased to accomplish that. And RAF C-17 crews will need to be trained not only for these tactical missions, but also boom refueling, which was (as I undersand it) not part of the original lease agreement. I don't know what this means for A400 which was supposed to be the premier tactical airlifter.

[KenV]

Well I dont think its unreasonable that the C-17 line would not have been sitting half as idle if the Grizzly hadnt been in anyone's pipeline projection. I imagine plenty European nations must have looked at C-17 whilst still on the drawing board and thought it would be nice to have, but sadly too expensive.Too expensive? Depends on how you look at it. Is buying 50 to 75 C-17s across Europe cheaper or more expensive than developing and building 75 to 100 A400s across Europe? India, Australia, Canada and a consortium of small European nations were able to afford C-17s. And they didn't have to just look at a "paper" airplane "still on the drawing board" as was suggested. Many C-17s were already built and serving before the A400 program was even launched. Of course all this ignores the political implications of the A400 program and the jobs it would (theoretically) create. Further, at this time the point is moot. The C-17 production line no longer exists and the ONLY alternative for an outsize transport is A400. If Europe needs an outsize military air transport, A400 MUST be made to work, no matter the cost to accomplish that.

[Arclite01]

any second-hand C17's are going have good residuals and resale values........

Arc

[Davef68]

Interesting development:

UPDATE 1-Indonesia to buy Airbus A400M military transport planes -minister (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/11/reuters-america-update-1-indonesia-to-buy-airbus-a400m-military-transport-planes-minister.html)

It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people. I can't remember if it was the French or Germans who forced the original FLA design to be props rather than jets, or why, but that was the start of the slide IMO.

[NutLoose]

It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people..

Well, so was the Jaguar and that worked out ok..... ok, you have me there :\

[Davef68]

Well, so was the Jaguar and that worked out ok..... ok, you have me there :\

The Jaguar at least only had a committee of 2, 3 if you count Dassault as the reluctant co-optee that would do anything to scupper the project. Tyhoon and Tornado both also suffered politically if not technically from being multi-nation projects.

[sandiego89]

I wonder if anyone has strolled down to the old file cabinet at Lockheed Marietta and dusted off the Fat Hercules (or fatter?) file , the C-130XL. Around 2008/2009 two or three versions were being looked at, a lesser change version that moved the wheel wells out giving a constant cross section, moving the wing higher atop the fuselage, and a full blown new fatter fuselage. Wings, engines, cockpit, tail pretty much J, giving some compatibility with the regular C-130 fleets.


I do wonder about Coochycools idea for a Dornier 328 type engine swap to turbofans. Surely that would only be a last resort if the engine issues can't be fixed, and would be a majorly expensive and time consuming process for the A-400- but intriguing. Maybe that would reduce turbulence and help resolve the inability to pass fuel to helicopters and the concerns about paradrops as well?

[Haraka]

IIRC the FLA ( Future Large Aircraft) c.1982 was originally envisaged as going to be a turbofan.
Then there was the love affair with " unducted fans" etc. in the mid 80's. The turbofan idea got downgraded on FLA as it evolved ( to fund "civil" UDF production ?) . I remember the horrific noise of the DC-9(?) UDF flying test bed at Farnborough in '86 followed by a general loss of interest in UDFs for the civil market . Apart from the (abortive) An 70, has this type of engine/Propfan propulsor had any other potential applications ?

[Genstabler]

There is an A400 pootling about at medium level over the N York Moors and Scarborough at this moment. Noisy blighter. Visible Periodically through gaps in the cloud cover and seems to be flying a racetrack, unless there is more than one of them. Any idea what it might be up to?

[Genstabler]

Just flown back over us in Westerly direction travelling faster this time. Not so noisy at speed.

[chopper2004]

@Haraka, yep

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger083/11427797_596368437173091_4097892598618797779_n_zpsregtq0xm.j pg

[Davef68]

Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD or economics.

[NutLoose]

Gas turbines can reverse as well, the Vicky Ten used to do it on reverse thrust.

[cessnapete]

Well remember while on BOAC Command Course, backing up the VC10. Although not a company approved procedure we all did a three point turn at Prestwick, on the disused runway, in the event of being stuck without a tug for push backs etc. Reversed easily with quite low power, F/Eng was on long lead ic, head out of forward door giving directions. Main thing to remember, feet on floor and stop by selecting forward thrust!

[Ken Scott]

I once observed a Canadian DC9 reverse off its stand at Calgary. Made a considerable noise so probably not SOP.......

[tdracer]

DC-9 and MD-80 could readily back with reversers - some operators did use that as SOP back in the 1980s (I was on an MD-80 more than once that used the reversers to back out of the gate). In addition to not needed the tug, since the aircraft was under control of the captain they didn't need as many ground crew spotters so there was a significant labor savings. However it did present a FOD risk and is pretty abusive on the engine in general - I think the operators quickly realized the increased engine maintenance cancelled out the labor savings.
Most commercial jets can back up with their reversers provided the ground is reasonably level - I was on a test on a 767 ~25 years ago where we demonstrated backing with the reversers. But it's so abusive to the engines and is such a FOD risk that no one does it unless it's an emergency.


The YC-14 could readily back using the reversers (and with the engines above the wing there was minimal FOD risk), - I suspect the C-17 can as well.

[unmanned_droid]

It would be interesting to consider a "coaler" style solution for turbofans rather than the props. Unfortunately you would need a new wing, and maybe an even bigger tail design if you were to move away from the prop driven option. Say approx 3 years of solid work from aero concept to production.

The prop flow has to be a huge factor in the loads/aero.

I had the 'pleasure' of working on the wing. Glad it was only a fleeting visit.

I'm also glad I wasn't one of the guys drilling out fake battle damage in their NBC kit, inside the box, in summer. Full respect for them for cracking on with it.

[melmothtw]

In other words, your great great grandchildren could be flying C-17s in the next century. So USAF is in no hurry to develop a replacement. Who knows, maybe they'll have transporter beams by then and there'll be no need for air transports. ;-)

Nah, we'll all be flying Airlanders by then...:E

[Arclite01]

maybe they will be the new SARO Princess - built and mothballed while we wait for the engines to be developed and then scrapped 10 years later.............

Arc

Perhaps we could sell them on to a corrupt country or two.............:)

[Rossian]

....are the engines different from the German ones? Do "our" ones have the same problems and limitations that the German ones do?

How do these big projects always seem to be a crock of sh1t at the beginning? I'm trying to think of any project, in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time. And I'm struggling...

The Ancient Mariner

[BEagle]

The Hawker-Siddeley Hawk programme remained on-time and on-budget throughout.

Was there a clue in this - it was in pre-BWoS times and 't Bungling Baron had nowt to do wi' it....:rolleyes:

[2805662]

I'm trying to think of any project, in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time. And I'm struggling...



. . . C-17?

[Winchweight]

. . . C-17?
Seriously?

Pentagon Warning Raises Threat of C-17 Cancellation - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-12/news/mn-34398_1_air-force-officials)

And although its been around a while (in USAF service since 1993) and is often quoted as the best thing since sliced bread, the C17 hasn't be all smiles.

And don't believe all you read in Der Spiegel... there are serious factual inaccuracies in that article - would you believe the Daily Mail?

[minigundiplomat]

How is Herr Merkel planning to deploy the Fallschirmjager to Kent on June 24th without them?

[GeeRam]

How is Herr Merkel planning to deploy the Fallschirmjager to Kent on June 24th without them?

He he :E :ok:

[sycamore]

Ring Lufthansa and borrow their Ju 52/3 s....

[KenV]

Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD....C-17 has turbofans and can back up an unpaved 2% slope at MTOGW into a 25 knot tailwind. So that is not an issue if the nacelle is designed right. The reversers also are deployable inflight to enable VERY rapid and steep descents. As for FOD, the C-17 operates routinely from unpaved austere fields and has had no significant FOD issues, and that too is largely due to careful nacelle design. In many ways, the C-17 nacelle is much more unpaved field friendly than any turboprop can ever hope to be.

[KenV]

And although its been around a while (in USAF service since 1993) and is often quoted as the best thing since sliced bread, the C17 hasn't be all smiles. Perhaps not "all" smiles, but apparently more smiles per buck-hour than any other military airlifter in history. ;-)

[2805662]

Seriously?

Pentagon Warning Raises Threat of C-17 Cancellation - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-12/news/mn-34398_1_air-force-officials)

And although its been around a while (in USAF service since 1993) and is often quoted as the best thing since sliced bread, the C17 hasn't be all smiles.


The question was "in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time."

So, yes, seriously, in RAF service (MoD leasing, crew training, introduction into service, MoD purchase etc) the C-17 fulfils these criteria. USAF experience - all prior to when the RAF got involved - is irrelevant.

[ORAC]

So your argument boils down to we should always buy off the shelf?

Nothing wrong with that, except you will always be at least one generation behind.

[Willard Whyte]

It could be argued that Typhoon's extended development has resulted in a fine aircraft, built (largely) to our requirements, that is also a generation behind...

[Rossian]

The question was - are the engines different?

Sure, some a/c get better with time but usually after some serious input from the operators (which the manufacturers then charge for). How can you tell?
F'rinstance the AEW Nimrod was a grade A crock and was NEVER going to improve (mainly because it was SO fugly).

Oh the thread drift...... it's endemic in Pprune.

The Ancient Mariner

[NutLoose]

How is Herr Merkel planning to deploy the Fallschirmjager to Kent on June 24th without them?

Perhaps they'd like to pop over to Bristol and collect the bomb they left behind :}

[NutLoose]

The question was "in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time."

So, yes, seriously, in RAF service (MoD leasing, crew training, introduction into service, MoD purchase etc) the C-17 fulfils these criteria. USAF experience - all prior to when the RAF got involved - is irrelevant.

Really?????? You seem to skirt over the ludicrous situation we signed up for under PFI

Royal Air Force

Boeing has marketed the C-17 to many European nations including Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The Royal Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force) (RAF) has established an aim of having interoperability and some weapons and capabilities commonality with the USAF. The 1998 Strategic Defence Review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_Review) identified a requirement for a strategic airlifter. The Short-Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) competition commenced in September of that year, however tendering was canceled in August 1999 with some bids identified by ministers as too expensive, including the Boeing/BAe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace) C-17 bid, and others unsuitable.[71] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#cite_note-business-71) The project continued, with the C-17 seen as the favorite.[71] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#cite_note-business-71) In the light of Airbus A400M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M) delays, the UK Secretary of State for Defence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Defence), Geoff Hoon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Hoon), announced in May 2000 that the RAF would lease four C-17s at an annual cost of £ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling)100 million from Boeing[68] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#cite_note-avweek_20060313-68) for an initial seven years with an optional two-year extension. The RAF had the option to buy or return the aircraft to Boeing. The UK committed to upgrading its C-17s in line with the USAF so that if they were returned, the USAF could adopt them. The lease agreement restricted the operational use of the C-17s, meaning that the RAF could not use them for para-drop, airdrop, rough field, low-level operations and air to air refuelling.[72] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#cite_note-72)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#cite_note-72)

[Wander00]

But are we still leasing or have we bought them/any of them? In which case I guess the restriction on airframe we own, if any, would cease to be effective

[2805662]

Really?????? You seem to skirt over the ludicrous situation we signed up for under PFI

None of said restrictions were the result of aircraft performance shortfalls. The MoD opted for the lease, Boeing (owner of the initial four aircraft) imposed limitations. Like any contract, there was an offer, consideration, & acceptance.

It's unreasonable to blame Boeing for the stupidity of the MoD.

I reiterate, C-17, within the RAF context, was on time, on budget, & delivered the contracted capability from the outset.

[turboshaft]

C of G considerations aside, whats the problem with simply strapping on some nice neat 'n tidy, tried 'n tested turbofans a la Dornier 328 instead?

Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD or economics.

The choice of a turboprop solution was driven by the need to perform Sarajevo approaches (aka Khe Sanh approaches), or so I was told at the time. Ironically it was later reported (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/airbus-militaertransporter-am-mission-impossible-1.492417) that a flutter issue might prevent the maneuver from being used. Unsure whether this problem was ever fixed.

The TP400 was a political solution to a technical requirement: two engine offerings were originally developed (the British-German BR700-TP and the French-German-Italian-Spanish M138, along with an eight (!) engine Canadian PW150 stalking horse proposal), but the competitive selection was abandoned in favor of a collaborative approach, to avoid tripping up the overall program.

[Uncle Ginsters]

But are we still leasing or have we bought them/any of them? In which case I guess the restriction on airframe we own, if any, would cease to be effective

The RAF now fully owns its own fleet of 8 aircraft.

Any restrictions now in place are down the the RAF Release to Service and capability requirement alone, which still prohibits much of the non-Strat role.

I think it's important to remember the climate at the time - the RAF was entering into a 4-year lease to cover a perceived short-term gap in Strat and outsized lift capability.
Faced with that task, do you,
a. Undertake full trials and staff-work to clear all roles (look at the C-130J for a loose comparison of timelines and complexity), or,
b. Simply insert the word "Prohibited" next to anything outside of the Strat AM concept.

I know what I'd do!

Back on thread though, what will be interesting will be to see if the RAF thinks we now need those roles; if so, let's see how long it takes for those prohibitions to be reversed in the now, post-Hadden-Cave environment in which we find ourselves.

[KenV]

The choice of a turboprop solution was driven by the need to perform Sarajevo approaches (aka Khe Sanh approaches), or so I was told at the time. With it's inflight deployable thrust reversers and speed brakes, C-17 can make an approach far steeper than the Sarajevo approach. In addition, the C-17 can land using up to a 6 degree glideslope (normal glideslope is 2.5 to 3 degrees) on final (steeper than a carrier landing) with NO flare and do it into an unpaved field. And C-17 has turbofans, so that is not an issue for a properly designed turbofan equipped military transport.

[KenV]

Back on thread though, what will be interesting will be to see if the RAF thinks we now need those roles; if so, let's see how long it takes for those prohibitions to be reversed in the now, post-Hadden-Cave environment in which we find ourselves. My understanding is that the RAF will use all of the C-17's tactical capabilities plus the prohibited strat capability: inflight refueling. Every RAF C-17 has been upgraded to the block 19 configuration (which BTW, not all USAF C-17s have). Block 19 includes, among other things, passive missile protection (ALE-47), active missile protection (LAIRCM), electroflourescent formation lights, NVG compatible cargo compartment lighting, combat lighting (IR landing and taxi lights in the wings and fuselage), a wide range of equipment airdrop systems/capabilities, multiple kinds of troop drop capabilities, satellite comms for both the aircrew and the embarked troops, non ambulatory combat aeromedical evac, etc etc. RAF is now qualifying their C-17s for troop drops and is in the process of purchasing equipment to qualify their C-17s for equipment drops. And the lease agreement notwithstanding, RAF has been operating their C-17s from austere unpaved fields in combat zones for nigh on two decades.

[salad-dodger]

FFS Ken, it's like listening to a C17 sales pitch on non stop looping play.

Actually, I'm not even sure if KenV is one person, more like a fecking non-stop sales pitch for the US of A, Boeing, LM, L3, you name it.....

S-D

[Uncle Ginsters]

...the RAF will use all of the C-17's tactical capabilities...
Nope.
inflight refueling. .
Nope.
RAF has been operating their C-17s from austere unpaved fields in combat zones for nigh on two decades.
Not once.

[rjtjrt]

I for one value KenV's posts, as they are informative.

[Lonewolf_50]

S-D, if you'll wind your neck in a bit you'll find less that annoys you.

[rjtjrt]

KenV
Is the last whitetail C-17 sold or earmarked for anyone?

[BBadanov]

KenV may know more...
but my understanding is that 14-0003 (msn 50273/F272) is currently still reg N272ZD, unsold at Boeing Long Beach.

AUS is crazy not to buy it, as there will soon be a demand on USAF second-hand aircraft, which they probably will not release.

[2805662]

KenV may know more...
but my understanding is that 14-0003 (msn 50273/F272) is currently still reg N272ZD, unsold at Boeing Long Beach.

AUS is crazy not to buy it, as there will soon be a demand on USAF second-hand aircraft, which they probably will not release.

Especially since Australia's 2016 Integrated Investment Plan incorporates the acquisition of another two.

[dragartist]

Should we leave this thread to A400M and start a new one on C17. I would be interested to hear of the development of the Tac Capabilities of both a/c particularly airdrop. I noted a couple of weeks back that freefall para had taken place from RAF C17.
Top airbus man was one of the first to freefall from A400M on one of the very early flights (publicity stunts).


Drag

[KenV]

KenV Is the last whitetail C-17 sold or earmarked for anyone? ....my understanding is that 14-0003 (msn 50273/F272) is currently still reg N272ZD, unsold at Boeing Long Beach.No. It's still in long term storage at the San Antonio depot with no customer in sight. The Long Beach plant no longer exists. Bldg 54, the C-17 final assembly building, is gutted and the flight line outside is derelict. Bldg 52 still has a few C-17 support engineers in it but they will be gone very soon and then Bldg 52 will be gutted. C-17 production is well and truly done. Forever.

As for the "C-17 sales pitches", they were all posted to refute the claims made about turbofan vs turboprop military airlifters. Almost all of the "tactical limitations" attributed to turbofans were a crock as the C-17 has been demonstrating for decades. And if the RAF is not planning on using the C-17's tactical capabilities as was asserted above, they're pi$$ing away a lot of money to upgrade and standardize their entire fleet to the block 19 standard, acquire airdrop and other tactical equipment, and to train their crews in the C-17's tactical systems/procedures. UK-1 (Fu-77) is in San Antonio now and I was aboard just a few minutes ago. Without violating ITAR or other export regulations, lets just say that the tactical systems installations are essentially complete, the UARSSI system is fully functional, and its on schedule for paint and final delivery. Is the RAF going to use all of the expensive upgrades they've paid for? That depends mostly on how much training they are willing and able to pay for. The tactical systems and equipment are bought, paid for, and installed, so now all they've got to do is train their crews to use it. I'm assuming (perhaps a big fat false assumption) that having paid for the equipment and its installation, that they'll find the money to train their crews. Of course that is uncertain. I don't know how it works in the UK, but there are different colors of money in the US. Some money can only be spent for acquisition and different color money must be used for operations, which in the US includes training. Maybe the RAF still needs to obtain the different color money to do the training.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ken, I think you will find we have funny money too. Problem is not enough so if you want some more then you need to take it from someone else.

[Just This Once...]

The RAF is in the C-17 block upgrade program, so it gets what it is included in that program. It is not purchasing capabilities above and beyond the wider program, only keeping pace with it. This is in an effort to reduce the total cost of ownership by avoiding the situation where the standard of our aircraft drifts away from the wider fleet. When new toys arrived (such as IR landing lamps) on our most recent C-17s it was not because we had specifically purchased them, they just happened to be part of that particular block standard.

[JAVELINBOY]

A400m Atlas over the house this afternoon low and slow looked like it was heading for St Athan, first sighting of this type for me.

[Uncle Ginsters]

The RAF C-17s operate to the Global Fleet concept, which keeps them supposedly in step with the rest of the world. The slight irony in that is that it actually puts us ahead of most of the USAF jets - I have no idea how the 'queue' (or 'line' for our Stateside buddies!) works for the upgrades. The fact is, we get each and every one of them.

What you (KenV) have to NB is that us "micro-fleets" of 4-10 jets work quite differently to the USAF with their 220+ frames. To put up a training jet takes a significant portion of our frames (1/6 on the line) and thus keeping the lowest possible training burden is paramount...to the point where, yes, it can even drive capability. Even synthetics suffer this same issue.
That's sadly just how it is operating in such relatively small numbers...

[TBM-Legend]

Time to dust off the plans for the Me-323 Gigant methinks. Fit six new RR AE2100D3's and away...

[ORAC]

AN-70 back on track.......

French Air Force charters An-70 to transport equipment from Africa to France | defenceWeb (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40939:french-air-force-charters-an-70-to-transport-equipment-from-africa-to-france&catid=47:Logistics&Itemid=110)

News.Az - Ukraine and Turkey agreed to develop three models of aircraft (http://news.az/articles/world/107844)

_7yMMOq4Bn4

[KenV]

The RAF C-17s operate to the Global Fleet concept, which keeps them supposedly in step with the rest of the world. The slight irony in that is that it actually puts us ahead of most of the USAF jets - I have no idea how the 'queue' (or 'line' for our Stateside buddies!) works for the upgrades. The fact is, we get each and every one of them.I understand that. So do several other nations. But not all nations opt for every upgrade. The Global Fleet concept does not require every aircraft in that fleet to have every upgrade. Indeed, some nations are prohibited from getting some of the upgrades/systems. Further, I attend the semi annual CORT and SORT gatherings of the global C-17 fleet. The UK folks who attended the last one (in March this year) indicated that since they now own their aircraft rather than lease them, they no longer have any operating restrictions and they intend to use every capability. They've already tested some of the troop drop capabilities, are buying equipment compatible with the C-17's equipment drop systems, and will test/qualify that equipment and systems at the earliest opportunity. And the UARSSI system was not fully functional when the aircraft were delivered to the UK, but every UK aircraft that goes thru San Antonio has that system made fully functional. And that has nothing to do with the block upgrade program.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Ken,
Check your PMs

[Alber Ratman]

A400 just flown over my house into NWi.. ;)

[Brian W May]

It might be capable when it works, many aircraft are . . .

However, it really looks like it should have been made by the Russians, it's one of the ugliest aircraft I've ever seen.

Remember the old adage, 'if it looks right, it flies right' - well they forgot when they designed this pachyderm of a very light grey hue.

[KenV]

I think the Ukrainian A400, the An-70, is rather pretty and those wide chord contrarotating propellers look badass. I really hope Antonov figures out a way to put the airplane in production.

[tdracer]

Airbus Confirms Cracks Found In 48 Engines Of A400 Aircraft (http://www.defenseworld.net/news/16151/Airbus_Confirms_Cracks_Found_In_48_Engines_Of_A400_Aircraft# .V0TlpEY5WnV)

Apparently all clockwise rotating engines are affected
This is, in two of the four engines fitted to the aircraft and the European consortium that manufactures Europrop. The other scenario is that all 48 engines mounted on the 24 aircraft delivered to customers have to be repaired.

[recceguy]

One of the reasons, 15 years ago, of not choosing the An-70 which was already flying (or a re-engined Il 76 with a sort of CFM-56) was the perceived " lack of industrial quality " of Russian products (in any case, that aircraft would have been built in Europe, only the plans would have been bought from the Russians ) !!!!! :ugh:
And now we have that thing .... :{

By the way, who had the brilliant idea of building from scratch the military brand of Airbus in ... Spain ?? but 15 years ago that country was the "new frontier of Europe" full of promises ... and real estate bubbles, along with industrial vacuity

[turboshaft]

Germany not considering scrapping A400M transport plane-gov't source (http://www.reuters.com/article/airbus-germany-idUSB4N16H01I)

...though additional "temporary" lift will be sought, "through leasing and other bilateral options with France, Britain and the United States."

[KenV]

Germany to Seek Compensation for Delayed Airbus A400M Deliveries

Germany will seek compensation from Airbus Group SE for delays in delivering the A400M military plane and warned the country may to turn to rival manufacturers to help meet its growing need for transport aircraft.

“We have an airtight contract in which compensatory damages are clearly spelled out,” Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said at the Berlin Air Show on Thursday. “We will make sure this entitlement to damages is carried out.” The Defense Ministry will decide later this year whether to buy or lease aircraft from Airbus competitors after completing a review of its transport needs and getting a report from the manufacturer detailing the A400M’s technical issues, said Jens Flosdorff, von der Leyen’s chief spokesman.

Germany, the largest customer for the A400M, has grown increasingly frustrated with the delays, which threaten to hamper (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/german-military-ambitions-hampered-by-delayed-airbus-a400m-plane) plans to expand its military reach globally. The country has thus far received just three planes, and a schedule that called for nine deliveries in 2016 is in question amid technical problems including fuselage cracks and faulty engine gearboxes. The A400M -- first ordered by Germany, six other European nations and Turkey back in 2003 -- is already more than four years late and 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) over budget. Germany currently relies on more than 40-year-old planes.

Von der Leyen, who walked past the A400M plane at the show without stopping, said Airbus is required to pay penalties for every day the aircraft is delayed. Her harsh words come a day after Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders visited the event and told reporters the plane is “worth waiting for.” Together with suppliers, Airbus is working “intensely” on resolving production issues, and is seeking solutions in the foreseeable future, he said.

LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/germany-to-seek-compensation-for-delayed-airbus-a400m-deliveries)

[ancientaviator62]

As I recall Lockheed's 'simple' upgrade of the C130 into the 'J' was over two years late and well over budget. Doe not excuse the A400 woes but these things do happen.

[KenV]

As I recall Lockheed's 'simple' upgrade of the C130 into the 'J' was over two years late and well over budget.Part of that was due to the certification issues. Since the J was a company funded effort certification was civil. The upgrades from H to J were sufficient that the FAA would not "grandfather" the many faults/problems of the old Hercules to the new one. So a lot of the delay and expense was to solve problems with the old airplane that were no longer considered acceptable. Stall characteristics were bad and required addition of (among other things) a stick pusher. Icing characteristics were bad and required many changes, including the addition of an anti-ice system on a section of the vertical fin/dorsal. Fire suppression in the engine nacelle was inadequate and required changes. Going to a two man cockpit required the addition of lots of automation, but the crew workload was excessive during emergencies and the avionics required lots of rework. In short, the "simple" upgrade was not at all simple and the original budget and schedule were woefully over optimistic. And even with all this hindsight, there were lots of unexpected issues when applying the C-130J upgrades to the C-27A to make it a C-27J. The 737MAX is a "simple" upgrade of the 737NG, but it still requires lots and lots of engineering and testing. The same with the A320neo. Indeed the problems there have been sufficient that Qatar has decided to walk away from their A320neo order. Pretty drastic action for a launch customer. In today's environment, there is no such thing as a "simple" upgrade for a new airplane.

LINK (http://www.wsj.com/articles/qatar-airways-walks-away-from-airbus-a320neo-deal-over-delays-1464954847)
LINK2 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/qatar-airways-in-talks-with-boeing-over-narrowbody-plane-deal-1461602285?cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=contextual&cx_artPos=3)

[t43562]

In today's environment, there is no such thing as a "simple" upgrade for a new airplane.

Isn't this a bit of an excuse? If it's not simple, then presumably that's because it was grossly underestimated.

[rjtjrt]

Germany reported to be considering small C-130J buy.

Germany Eyes Joint C-130 Fleet With Allies (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/06/germany-mulls-over-operating-c-130-hercules-partners/85477212/)

[EAP86]

Isn't this a bit of an excuse? If it's not simple, then presumably that's because it was grossly underestimated.

Unfortunately while the rules are fairly clear, the interpretation can still be complex - EASA offer a 2 week course on their regs on this. EASA will provide advice (presumably so will the FAA) but this is often seen as encouraging additional risk so some companies don't do it. In my experience the accountants have an undue influence on this. Personally I see this as adding uncertainty but there you go...

EAP

[ancientaviator62]

KenV,
thank you for the informative comments on the woes of the 'J'. According to my A320 pilot grandson the word is that it is the problems with the P and W engines that has most upset QATAR. Apologies for the thread drift but it is useful to see a bigger picture.

[KenV]

KenV, thank you for the informative comments on the woes of the 'J'. You're welcome.

According to my A320 pilot grandson the word is that it is the problems with the P and W engines that has most upset QATAR. Apologies for the thread drift but it is useful to see a bigger picture. That is also my understanding. The P&W engine uses an entirely new technology (a fan with reduction gears) and it is experiencing all sorts of early teething problems. It'll be interesting to see if the reduction gears really do provide the claimed/hoped for fuel burn reduction to justify the weight, drag, and complexity penalties. Time will tell. Boeing was more conservative and stuck to only GE LEAP engines on the 737MAX (and besides, the P&W engine with the larger diameter fan would not work on the 737 anyway) and thus avoided this added risk and complication. On the other hand, the A320neo is currently outselling the 737MAX, so maybe the risk was justified. We won't know until both the Airbus and the Boeing airplanes are in full rate production.

But the bottom line is that there really is no such thing anymore as a "simple" upgrade to generate a new airplane.

[tdracer]

But the bottom line is that there really is no such thing anymore as a "simple" upgrade to generate a new airplane.

I first became a DER in 1988, and KenV is spot on. The certification efforts required have mushroomed, and they've made life so unpleasant for DER types (I'm now an "Authorized Representative" or AR, but that's just the delegated equivalent of a DER) that I don't think I'd encourage a young engineer to follow the DER/AR career path.
Worse, it has almost nothing to do with safety. Less than 10% of the additional effort is going towards actual improved safety, most if it is bureaucratic BS :mad:

[Tourist]

Less than 10% of the additional effort is going towards actual improved safety, most if it is bureaucratic BS :mad:

That statement covers pretty much everything since Haddon-Cave......

[Arclite01]

Well if you get in a Lawyer rather than an Engineer that is what you get..........

'The Law is an Ass......' I believe is the saying.

Seems to be the trend nowadays to get in someone who knows nothing about the subject to give a full and unqualified binding decision..........

Arc

[JFZ90]

You're welcome.

That is also my understanding. The P&W engine uses an entirely new technology (a fan with reduction gears) and it is experiencing all sorts of early teething problems. It'll be interesting to see if the reduction gears really do provide the claimed/hoped for fuel burn reduction to justify the weight, drag, and complexity penalties. Time will tell. Boeing was more conservative and stuck to only GE LEAP engines on the 737MAX (and besides, the P&W engine with the larger diameter fan would not work on the 737 anyway) and thus avoided this added risk and complication. On the other hand, the A320neo is currently outselling the 737MAX, so maybe the risk was justified. We won't know until both the Airbus and the Boeing airplanes are in full rate production.

But the bottom line is that there really is no such thing anymore as a "simple" upgrade to generate a new airplane.
I used to think these new geared fans were a totally "new" technology but was intrigued to learn that the old BAe-146 has had them for over 30 years - they are effectively Chinook engines with geared fans stuck on them to create a high bypass turbofan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_ALF_502

[airsound]

France to Receive First Fully-Capable A400M (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/174682/france-receives-first-fully_capable-a400m-as-airbus-finds-interim-pgb-fix.html)
PARIS --- The French air force will soon receive the first A400M military transport aircraft fully equipped with self-protection and air-drop capabilities, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced today. ........

Separately, the Paris news website La Tribune reported June 14 that the consortium that supplies the A400M’s turboprop engines had found an interim fix for the fault in the propeller gear box (PGB) that has limited the aircraft’s operations by requiring inspections every 20 flight hours. .....

The A400M has suffered multiple delays and capability shortfalls which has limited its operational capabilities to straightforward transport missions, excluding more complex, low-level tactical missions that are required for operational use. .....

The German government has called for the Airbus group to produce a specific plan to solve the problems of the A400M, after the recent appearance of new faults in the engines as well as cracks in the fuselage. Wonder when the first "fully capable" one will arrive at Brize.....

airsound

[Chugalug2]

tdracer:-
Less than 10% of the additional effort is going towards actual improved safety, most if it is bureaucratic BS

Tourist:-
That statement covers pretty much everything since Haddon-Cave......

That statement covers pretty much everything in Haddon-Cave......

[tdracer]

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand the reference to Haddon-Cave.
All I came up with from Google was reference to a Nimrod crash...

[Chugalug2]

The Nimrod Report by Mr Haddon-Cave QC revealed that systemic faults permeated UK Military Airworthiness and called for a Military Aviation Authority to be established in order to restore it. That was the good part.

Unfortunately he ignored evidence that the damage had been caused by RAF VSOs in the late 80s/early 90s, describing those years instead as a "Golden Period"! That cover up ensured that the MAA was compromised from the start, as the independence that would have enabled reform was denied it. It has thus been instead the bureaucracy complained of by Tourist ever since, and unairworthiness continues to infect UK military airfleets, such as the ACO one, as a result.

[Lordflasheart]

Tdracer – It’s just as Chug says …. And please excuse me for adding a little. (Chug - PM sent)

You might wish to look at the background links below, and as an aerospace professional you would certainly understand the technical details. Our new MAA has already been absorbed into the newer Defence Safety Authority – viz -
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-safety-authority
I think we have an ongoing disagreement about the meaning of the word “Independent.”

Mr Haddon-Cave’s report is below - The label may say “Golden Period” (H-C p 385) but inside the can is only the proverbial worms.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229037/1025.pdf

ACO stands for Air Cadet Organisation - In this respect, referring to the RAF-run Volunteer Gliding Squadrons (VGSs - providing powered and unpowered gliding facilities for air minded young people) These two dozen plus units across the UK have now been grounded for over two years due to institutional airworthiness problems - for which see the long-running thread in this section below - http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/538497-air-cadets-grounded.html
and the Wiki article on the VGS here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Gliding_Squadron

For further detailed insight into the wider longstanding problem of UK military airworthiness and specific fatal crashes, this guy certainly knows his stuff, from the inside out. https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/

Hope this helps, LFH. .................................... Now - about those A400 engines .....




....................

[riff_raff]

The A400's turboprop engine is a clean sheet design and much higher power than existing western engines. It would not seem unusual for such an engine to experience some development problems. But gearboxes are a well known technology, so I would not expect to see this type of problem from an experienced company like Avio, MTU, or Rolls-Royce.

[melmothtw]

Something I don't understand is why Germany, which only has a couple of aircraft and would very rarely if at all use them operationally, is so down on the A400M, while the UK which is receiving them at an increasing rate and is flying them all over the world seems to be very happy with it (certainly the crews I have spoken to are). Both nations have the same aircraft, so what is going on here?

[t43562]

Something I don't understand is why Germany, which only has a couple of aircraft and would very rarely if at all use them operationally, is so down on the A400M, while the UK which is receiving them at an increasing rate and is flying them all over the world seems to be very happy with it (certainly the crews I have spoken to are). Both nations have the same aircraft, so what is going on here?
I don't have any information but could it just be their attitude to not getting everything they paid for? Could it be the need to motivate Airbus?

[Lordflasheart]

Both nations have the same aircraft, so what is going on here? (NB - plus France have a few)
In short, I think it's something to do with having to inspect the gearboxes (on one pair of engines) for some kind of cracking, every 20 hours. Plus still waiting for service clearance for a couple of minor operational roles. It's all on prune and wiki. HTH LFH


...........................

[melmothtw]

Thanks, but my question was why are the Germans so unhappy with the same aircraft that the UK seems to be more than happy with. Am aware that others have received the aircraft also, was just using Germany and the UK as they are at opposite ends of the spectrum of deliveries and customer satisfaction.

Engine gearboxes, etc, are common to all A400M nations.

[kbrockman]

Thanks, but my question was why are the Germans so unhappy with the same aircraft that the UK seems to be more than happy with. Am aware that others have received the aircraft also, was just using Germany and the UK as they are at opposite ends of the spectrum of deliveries and customer satisfaction.

Don't want to sound like a cynic but they might be setting up for another order cut, from 53 to now 40 (13 to be sold to third party) and maybe that is even too many for them, might be preparing for another cut, 25 or something I would guess, this mould certainly give them a somewhat valid reason.

[KenV]

Thanks, but my question was why are the Germans so unhappy with the same aircraft that the UK seems to be more than happy with. I believe the answer lies in who is complaining: the operators, the maintainers, the contract officers, or the politicians? The flight crews can absolutely love an airplane, but if it requires burdensome inspections or other painful maintenance requirements, the maintainers could hate it. Or it may fly great, and be easy to maintain, but if it cannot meet contracted requirements like airdrop or aerial refueling, the contract officers will hate it. And politicians may hate it simply because it is not built in Germany and/or does not have enough German content. Or the politicians may have spent billions to develop and produce a new armored vehicle (Puma FV, Boxer APC, 8x8 Grizzly?), but there was no coordination between the aircraft designers and vehicle designers and it turns out the vehicle is not compatible with the aircraft. So the answer may depend on who in each nation is shouting praises and who is shouting curses.

[kbrockman]

AAR for helicopters seems to be something for this year.
MILITARY TECHNOLOGY: A400M Helicopter Refuelling Kit Ready by End of 2016 (http://www.miltechmag.com/2016/06/a400m-helicopter-refuelling-kit-ready.html)
A400M Helicopter Refuelling Kit Ready by End of 2016

An air-to-air Refuelling (AAR) refuelling kit for the C-295 was extensively tested by Airbus Defence & Space (DS) with dry contact scheduled in July and helictopter AAR with an H-225M by November 2016.

[ORAC]

Airbus Looks To the US in Search of A400M Buyers (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/23/airbus-seeks-a400m-buyers/86290596/)

"......Airbus expects two planes to have flown 100 hours by June 24 to test an interim Avio propeller gearbox replacing the present system. “Cracking is not a safety issue,” Alonso said. “Safety is guaranteed by inspection intervals.” Once the interim fix is installed, the gearbox will be inspected every 600 flight hours compared to the current 20 hours. A long-term solution of a new gearbox from General Electric and Italian subisidary Avio is expected to be delivered next year......

French aerospace lab Onera has conducted research and development to find an aerial refueling system for helicopters, a key French requirement, said Miguel Angel Morell, head of engineering at Airbus DS. The plan is to flight-test a small-diameter fuel hose up to 120 feet in length by the end of the year, extending it from the standard 80-90 feet. A longer hose is needed to allow helicopter pilots to see the tailplane during the fuel transfer and cut the turbulence of flying behind the four powerful TP-400 turboprop engines from Europrop International. Airbus DS is working with Airbus Helicopter for the test flight..........

There is a modification of installing a small step to allow 116 paratroopers to jump from both sides of the fuselage, with 58 from each side door. A full test jump of 116 troops is due by the end of the year. These would be alternate jumps, with work ongoing to enable a simultaneous jump from both doors.

Airbus seems unlikely to bid in a US tender for a second batch of air tankers. There is little interest for the Air Force to fly two types of aircraft, said Jean-Pierre Talamoni, head of sales and marketing........"

[KenV]

The plan is to flight-test a small-diameter fuel hose up to 120 feet in length by the end of the year, extending it from the standard 80-90 feet. A longer hose is needed to allow helicopter pilots to see the tailplane during the fuel transfer and cut the turbulence of flying behind the four powerful TP-400 turboprop engines from Europrop International. There are two problems with the small diameter hose. #1 is fuel flow. Can they get the necessary/desired fuel flow thru the hose, or will customers have to accept slower and therefore longer aerial refueling. #2 is rigidity. The smaller diameter hose will be significantly more flexible. Will the basket be stable farther back AND flying at the end of a much more flexible hose. The smaller diameter hose is required to fit the hose onto the existing hose reel and into the existing refuel pod. Staying with the current diameter hose but extending its length will require significant redesign to both, adding time and cost.

There is a modification of installing a small step to allow 116 paratroopers to jump from both sides of the fuselage, with 58 from each side door. A full test jump of 116 troops is due by the end of the year. These would be alternate jumps, with work ongoing to enable a simultaneous jump from both doors.C-17 explored a similar option. The US Army and USAF were adamantly opposed to any system that imposed/ensured alternating jumps from the left and right troop doors. They were firm in their requirement that a solution be found to enable simultaneous jumps from both doors. I'm pretty sure that the C-17 solution would work for A400M.

[kbrockman]

There are two problems with the small diameter hose. #1 is fuel flow. Can they get the necessary/desired fuel flow thru the hose, or will customers have to accept slower and therefore longer aerial refueling.

You're right about the fuel flow rate, there will be a trade-off, slightly lower flowrate resulting in longer contact time (quoting from the article).

[Easy Street]

Why are the Germans so down on A400M?

Don't want to sound like a cynic but they might be setting up for another order cut, from 53 to now 40 (13 to be sold to third party) and maybe that is even too many for them, might be preparing for another cut, 25 or something I would guess, this mould certainly give them a somewhat valid reason.

I agree with kbrockman's analysis. I think they are also realising that the aircraft is too large for some of the tasks they want to do with it. I don't want to sound like a cynic either but it would hardly be the first time that a partner nation in a large programme wildly overestimated its requirements in order to secure workshare, before scaling back the order safe in the knowledge that the production facilities were in place...

[AW009]

Engine damage: A400M of Bundeswehr grounded

By Matthias Gebauer (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=de&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/impressum/autor-520.html&usg=ALkJrhigzOpTUOnDw5-uVbelaEFRJlI7NQ) Thursday, 06/30/2016 - 16:12
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-932782-breitwandaufmacher-oldn-932782.jpg http://www.spiegel.de/static/sys/v10/icons/ic_lupe.png (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=de&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bild-1100661-932782.html&usg=ALkJrhg3TXbUmpmoyWbUInWeTHRXC3z65g) AFP

Original link:Bundeswehr: Airbus-A400M-Flieger müssen am Boden bleiben - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-airbus-a400m-flieger-muessen-am-boden-bleiben-a-1100661.html)

Google translation: https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Fbund eswehr-airbus-a400m-flieger-muessen-am-boden-bleiben-a-1100661.html&edit-text=

[KenV]

Airbus Said to Cut German A400M Deliveries for 2016 in Half
Planemaker grappling with gearbox, engine, fuselage faults

Airbus Group SE will deliver just over half the A400M military transport planes Germany was set to receive this year, exacerbating delays in the troubled model and raising the prospect of further writedowns for the manufacturer.

A preliminary delivery plan Airbus presented to the country’s Defense Ministry indicates the company will deliver five A400Ms in 2016, instead of the nine agreed on earlier, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the information is confidential. The air force received its first plane from this year’s batch last Wednesday.

A ministry spokeswoman said Airbus has presented “a first delivery and retrofit plan” and is being asked to provide further details. She declined to comment on the number of aircraft Germany expects to receive. Kieran Daly, an Airbus spokesman, said in an e-mail that delivery schedules with customers for this year are still being finalized.

Germany is among seven North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries that commissioned the four-engine A400M turboprop transporter in 2003 to replace decades-old models. Faulty gearboxes and a crash during a test flight caused by an engine failure have led to multiple delivery holdups. Airbus may need to take “an incremental charge in our next quarter” because of slower-than-expected progress with fixing the model, Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders told analysts a week ago.

The company booked 290 million euros ($321 million) in provisions related to the A400M in 2015, on top of 551 million euros in costs posted in 2014. Airbus’s next quarterly earnings reports are scheduled for July 27 and in October. “The magnitude of probable charges is extremely difficult to predict, but 500 million euros should be realistic, with the possible maximum at about 1 billion euros,” said Stefan Maichl, an analyst at LBBW in Stuttgart. The lower figure is “already anticipated by the financial markets.” Airbus fell as much as 0.9 percent and was trading down 0.8 percent at 51.80 euros as of 12 p.m. in Paris. The stock has dropped 16 percent this year, valuing the planemaker at 40 billion euros.

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said last month that the government will seek compensation (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/germany-to-seek-compensation-for-delayed-airbus-a400m-deliveries) from Airbus and might look at competing suppliers. The country’s A400M fleet consists of three planes delivered in 2014 and 2015, as well as the one handed over last week. Two of the aircraft received earlier have been grounded because of the gearbox flaw. Germany has ordered more than 50 of the aircraft.

[T28B]

Germany to pull out of the A400 program
As my fiancé said right before the wedding was cancelled ... substantial penalty for early withdrawal.

[sandiego89]

Airbus targeting the US with future A400 sales. "Airbus staff are drafting a marketing program".... Gotta love the optimism, but good luck with that.....


Airbus Looks To the US in Search of A400M Buyers (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/23/airbus-seeks-a400m-buyers/86290596/)

[ORAC]

Germany may keep more of its A400 military transporters -report | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-germany-idUSKBN15L2G3?il=0)

Germany is in talks with several countries, including the Czech Republic and Switzerland, about jointly operating a large number of the 13 Airbus A400M military transport planes it had planned to sell, a German newspaper reported.

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported in Tuesday editions that the plan would allow the German air force to maintain access to a large number of the transport planes. A ministry spokeswoman declined comment. Airbus also declined comment, but a spokesman said the report did not indicate a change in the total number of planes that Germany expected to buy.

Germany initially planned to buy 60 of the aircraft, but later lowered the number to 53. In 2011, the German parliament then approved a plan under which 13 of those aircraft would be sold to other countries to save money. But sources familiar with the program said a military review had indicated greater requirements for transport planes........

Sueddeutsche Zeitung said the arrangements under discussion called for the A400M transports to be based in Germany, with other countries being able to use them as needed, but Germany being responsible for training, maintenance and operations. Such pooling and sharing agreements have been strongly encouraged by NATO and the European Union, which is seeking to strengthen its security and cooperation among member countries.

The newspaper said it was unclear what the change in the ministry's plans would cost, since it would depend on how many aircraft were ultimately sold to other countries, and how many were put into joint operating agreements.

[Arclite01]

Shared assets

Absolute disaster

Arc

[Heathrow Harry]

Sandiego - not now but in a few years what else will the USAF buy? Surely not a new airlifter programme??