View Full Version : Indonesia Order 5 A400M
Alert 5 » Jane?s: Indonesia to buy 5 A400Ms - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2017/01/19/janes-indonesia-to-buy-5-a400ms/)
The Indonesian government has approved the purchase of five Airbus A400M transport aircraft, Jane’s reported. The same report said the aircraft will be operated by Squadron 31 and 32.
Government and industry sources told the publication that $2 billion has been allocated for the acquisition.
tartare
20th Jan 2017, 07:36
So what do we reckon?
Six months before the first crash?
VX275
20th Jan 2017, 08:29
Are these going to be new builds or ones sold off Germany's order?
I never could understand why Germany wanted so many A400 other than a simple greed for workshare.
Trumpet_trousers
20th Jan 2017, 09:11
I never could understand why Germany wanted so many A400 other than a simple greed for workshare.
... ditto Spain, (only taking ~ 50% of order) - you only have to look at how many C-130s Spain will be replacing to see that it doesn't make sense.
Forrest Black
20th Jan 2017, 15:48
I never could understand why Germany wanted so many A400 other than a simple greed for workshare.The main reason probably is that unarmed air transport is the kind of participation in military operations that the war-weary German public is expected to tolerate.
So the idea was to buy lots of transport aircraft to stop other nations asking for German combat troops in international operations.
On the other hand, the FDP, a small political party that used to be part of governing coalitions now and again, had always wanted not more than 40 A400M for Germany. When the first A400M contract was made in 2003, the FDP was not in the government. But when the contract was renegotiated in 2010, they were part of the ruling coalition and finally got their will.
MPN11
20th Jan 2017, 18:58
Interesting perspective, Forrest Black ... thanks for that insight.
Heathrow Harry
21st Jan 2017, 11:50
I suspect that Indonesia would have ordered C-17's if they were available
they're not going to fly the A.400's into really rough strips - they're more for moving large kit around a very large country that is split into a zillion islands
So what do we reckon?
Six months before the first crash?
Is it really good form to defecate on military professionals from another country as a response to their getting some modern kit? I am asking *not as a moderator* but as someone who believes that ours is a brotherhood -- military aviation professionals -- that crosses all borders.
Forrest Black
22nd Jan 2017, 08:40
I suspect that Indonesia would have ordered C-17's if they were availableThat's somewhere along the lines of "the A400M is superfluous since C-17 + C-130 is all you need". But if they had wished to buy C-17s, there would have been plenty of time to do so. They waited for the A400M instead. The C-17 may be oversized for their needs and their small islands, and the A400M may be just the right size for them.
Just This Once...
22nd Jan 2017, 08:56
I suspect that Indonesia would have ordered C-17's if they were available
Really? You think when perusing a virtual catalog of past-and-present airlifters that anyone planning on island-hoping around their own area would think C-17 was the way to go? Can you identify a single parameter where the C-17 would meet a requirement that an A-400M would not?
If it wasn't for 1 specific requirement the Indonesian capability needs would have been met by an aircraft at or below C-130 size.
Heathrow Harry
22nd Jan 2017, 09:01
It's a big country if you need to move a lot of kit a long way
Buster Hyman
22nd Jan 2017, 11:39
Will we get our old C-130's back now?
Just This Once...
22nd Jan 2017, 18:27
It's a big country if you need to move a lot of kit a long way
Not that big that it requires strategic airlift. Even at the extremes it is akin to going from west coast to east coast USA with a lot less north and south landmass.
Indonesia to buy two A400Ms to move goods (http://alert5.com/2018/03/08/indonesia-to-buy-two-a400ms-to-move-goods/)
Indonesia has decided to purchase two A400M transport aircraft from Airbus but these planes will not have any military role as they will be used to move goods around the eastern part of the country.
The Indonesian Air Force will provide assistance to the Indonesian Trading Company (PPI) – which is buying the aircraft – with pilots and maintenance personnel.
PPI is responsible for the purchase and distribution of goods such as food and fuel and the eastern part of the country lacks roads and are highly dependent on aircraft to bring in the supplies.
Heathrow Harry
8th Mar 2018, 09:12
Yes I believe they have a trial programme underway using some Agri spraying aircraft converted to flying fuel for generators into remote villages
The economics must be horrendous but I guess the voters like it.......
last time I was out there cheap solar panels were sprouting everywhere.
The main reason probably is that unarmed air transport is the kind of participation in military operations that the war-weary German public is expected to tolerate.
So the idea was to buy lots of transport aircraft to stop other nations asking for German combat troops in international operations.War weary? Anyone who experienced war in Germany would have to be AT LEAST in their seventies. Anyone under 70 in Germany would never have experienced war. How could they possibly be "war weary"?
If Germany really wanted to "contribute" to a war by providing military transport without providing troops they could have easily joined the SAC (Strategic Airlift Capability) group.
Something about this explanation does not feel right.
But if they had wished to buy C-17s, there would have been plenty of time to do so. They waited for the A400M instead. The C-17 may be oversized for their needs and their small islands, and the A400M may be just the right size for them.A few comments:
1. Plenty of time to do so? India wants more C-17s. Badly. They even bought the last white tail which was actually earmarked for Qatar and want more. But can't get them. Politicians who create budgets are not persuaded by silly things like "You need to buy or commit now before the line shuts down."
2. I doubt they "waited for A400M". They did not need to wait and could literally have bought them over a decade ago as Malaysia did. More likely they bought the best airplane that was available when the money became available. It'll be interesting to see if they get some of the A400s originally destined for Germany. Or even some of the A400's already delivered to Germany.
3. Small islands? I doubt the size of the island matters at all. What matters is the size of the runway on the island. A400M needs essentially the same size runway as C-17. So what matters is what is being moved and how much of it. If they need heavy equipment moved (bulldozers, earth movers, and the like), C-17 is a much better choice. If they need the usual road going trucks moved, A400 would be the better choice. Unless they needed large numbers of road going trucks, in which case C-17 would have been better.
Really? You think when perusing a virtual catalog of past-and-present airlifters that anyone planning on island-hoping around their own area would think C-17 was the way to go? Can you identify a single parameter where the C-17 would meet a requirement that an A-400M would not?
I can name a few:
1. Weight of payload.
2. Width of payload.
3. Height of payload.
4. Length of runway with heavy payloads. And assuming there was NO runway available, then
5. Size and weight of airdropped payloads.
PPI is responsible for the purchase and distribution of goods such as food and fuel and the eastern part of the country lacks roads and are highly dependent on aircraft to bring in the supplies.
I was born and raised in Indonesia. Indonesia is an archipelago. There are no roads connecting eastern Indonesia because they are islands separated by ocean waters. And very few have deep water ports. However, many have runways which would support not only tourists, but also transport aircraft. The odd thing is this phrase: "...these planes will not have any military role as they will be used to move goods..." A commercial freighter can be bought and operated very cheaply and move lots of "goods." Unless those "goods" include vehicles and other such outsize articles.
It'll be interesting to find out what the actual "goods" will be that are going to be moved to all those islands.
Heathrow Harry
8th Mar 2018, 17:19
Ken
If it's anything like Tarakan when I was there it will be "goods" FROM the remote islands - expensive things that seem to appear like magic when the long black boats with 3 or 4 very large outboard motors come back each morning having been "fishing" near the Malaysian border overnight........
But seriously - yes, there is a fantastic network of small boats running around the archipelago carrying everything from Cement mixers to LandCruisers but who in their right mind would use PELNI for anything valuable, breakable or needed on time??
Just seen that someone has reopened a weekly air service from Ambon to Banda in the Spice Islands - thank God!!
AARON O'DICKYDIDO
8th Mar 2018, 20:20
If the aircraft are non-military would they be A400C?
Just asking.
Aaron.
tdracer
8th Mar 2018, 21:17
If the aircraft are non-military would they be A400C?
Just asking.
Aaron.
Along that line, vague memory says the A400 has a Part 25 CS cert. That would make using one for commercial operations relatively easy.
I remember Boeing looked at doing a FAR Part 25 cert of the C-17 to allow commercial sales, but it would have cost a fortune and anticipated sales didn't come close to justifying the expense (something similar happened with the V-22).
unmanned_droid
9th Mar 2018, 06:37
Yes, the A400M was civil certified first.
theloudone
9th Mar 2018, 08:19
And hasn`t that paid off!!!
unmanned_droid
9th Mar 2018, 08:40
Have they tried to make it pay off?
Yes, the A400M was civil certified first.
So was the C-130J.
The lessons learnt from that project were mostly ignored by Airbus and the A400 PTs
Yes, the A400M was civil certified first.
I know the A400M went through a civil certification process but only for the 'civil' aspects designed to CS25 criteria. A part of the overall design was left to the various National military certification processes (based mostly on a single Airbus body of evidence). My reading of this is that there isn't a fully valid type certification available to civil operators (even if there may be a document called a Type Certificate).
Maybe a bit pedantic on my part given that it probably wouldn't take a lot of effort to take an A400C through the full process but some aspects, e.g. passenger accommodations, ramp access and operation, might be interesting.
I once sat through a presentation by the A400M PT where they claimed that the civil certification with 85% of the work took as long as (or longer?) the military certification of the remaining 15%. Just for interest, I know that the OCCAR body which created the A400M Cert & Qual processes was chaired for a long time by a member of the UK MAA. He said that the processes were openly available on the interweb but I've never been able to find them.
EAP
Please excuse the reminiscing but I've just remembered a conversation I had with a senior UK Airbus certification bloke I knew just after they had got the job. He told me that Airbus were intent on sticking to the civil certification process for everything. I believe my reply was something along the lines of, "good luck with that..."
EAP
Heathrow Harry
9th Mar 2018, 12:45
Makes sense - Airbus are set up as CIVIL manufacturer so all their systems will be built on civilian certification
Lockheed are purely military these days and so probably are set up for Military certification
Mr B does both but (see KC-46) can fall between two stools.............
tdracer
9th Mar 2018, 16:49
HH, a major source of the KC-46 delays have been related to getting FAA Part 25 cert of the 767-2C (as well as aspects of the KC-46, which is an STC from the 767-2C).
I remain puzzled by the continued expectation that military transport aircraft get civil certification. It's hugely complicated and expensive and adds almost nothing of value to the finished product (in some cases actually being counterproductive).