You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018...or-airlifters/

South Korea and Spain seek deal to swap trainer jets for airlifters

SEOUL — South Korean and Spanish defense officials are to discuss a possible trade of trainer and transport aircraft, according to arms procurement officials and industry sources in the Asian nation. The deal may involve about 50 basic and advanced trainer jets built by Korea Aerospace Industries, or KAI, and four to six Airbus A400M airlifters, they said.

“South Korea and Spain plan to hold a joint defense industry committee in Madrid this month to discuss bilateral issues,” said an official with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The swap deal is not an official agenda item on the table, but the sides are open to discussing it.”

The proposal was made by Spain during the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. last July, as the Spanish Air Force seeks to replace its older trainer fleet of Chilean ENAER T-35C Pillan jets, according to an industry source privy to the potential swap deal.

“Spain ordered 27 A400M transport aircraft from Airbus but has decided not to use 13 of them, so the Spanish defense authorities have got approval from Airbus to sell the surplus products to other countries,” the source said. “Spain wants to sell four to six A400Ms to South Korea, and it buys 34 KT-1 basic trainer aircraft and 20 more T-50 supersonic trainer jets for advanced pilot training if possible.” If the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, he said, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.

The envisaged deal could be a breakthrough for KAI to sell more of its trainer aircraft after its recent defeat in a U.S. Air Force trainer competition.

“Any swap deal is delegated to the DAPA and its Spanish counterpart, and we’re waiting on the results,” a KAI spokesman said. Airbus would not discuss the prospect of such a deal.

Industry sources believe the proposed deal could meet the South Korean Air Force’s need of acquiring larger airlifters for longer-range missions. During an Oct. 19 parliamentary inspection of the Air Force, the service revealed a plan to procure four more large transport aircraft in addition to its existing fleet of CN-235 and C-130 planes. “We have a plan to deploy larger transport aircraft to increase our capacity of rapid force deployment, emergency relief, peacekeeping and other operations over long distances,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Lee Wang-keun said in a report to lawmakers.

Preliminary research on the requirements of the larger airlifter acquisition will be conducted between 2019 and 2020 before a request for proposal is issued for full operational capability by 2022, according to Air Force officials.

The A400M Atlas is regarded as a strong candidate for the airlift procurement program, as the C-17 Globemaster III production line run by Boeing is shut down. The A400M can carry 116 fully equipped troops and up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel.

...where to start Ken....
1. It’s CDS, not DRAS
2. The system is fitted as standard for all A400M ac
3. The UK don’t have a requirement for DRAS, therefore they won’t be dropping it anytime soon, if ever.
.... that’s all for now....

Spanish Eurofighters recently A2A refuelled from an A400M. Nice capability to have...

Re #324. The guys from the test 206 Sqn gave a lecture last night at the RAeS. They discussed the ASRA trial and the CDS trial in some detail. Big issues with the CARP and feeding data into the FMS.
At the end of the lecture the head of the RAeS flight test group made some quip at the need for carpenters. I had a chuckle to my self.
I have been following the Bzn twitter feed on this. Some of the comments really are funny.
AA62. No static line pers para, or anything bigger than 1 tons on 48” boards appears to be on the horizon any time soon. The guys appear to be working very hard to deliver a basic capability. Nothing like Airbus were promising before the aircraft was delivered.
Ed Strongman came to Cambridge a good few years back before the aircraft had been handed over. He was so optomistic about what was going to be delivered.

AA62: and therein lies Airbus’ problem - not prepared to listen to SMEs, they would rather try and implement a theoretical/engineering fix and wonder why their customer(s) get a tad angry with them.
Hope you are well, btw.

TT, your #333 is a little disengenuous. Airbus took on a couple of our senior MACR Loadmasters when it was still a paper aeroplane and they were building the mock up at Bremen. Some of these guys had been mentored by AA62. Lots of UK SMEs had an input including the AD and AFE RMs, QinetiQ trials Officers, JADTEU and the HOEU. These folks sat on a number of Working Groups. It certainly appears that the fruits of their labours and all those early morning starts to get to Bremen weeks on end have been wasted.
I do agree with you over the point that Airbus tried to implement many engineering fixes that even defied basic physics.

https://www.janes.com/article/89388/...-an-132d-fades

Paris Air Show 2019: Saudi Arabia considering A400M as An-132D fades

The Royal Saudi Air Force is currently considering the Airbus Military A400M Atlas medium lift transport aircraft.

Chief Executive Officer of Saudi Arabia Military Industries, Dr Andreas Schwer, told Jane's of the country's interest in the platform to fulfil a need for the transportation of armoured vehicles by the country's military.

“The focus of the Saudi Air Force and other local customers has changed from a 10-tonne payload platform to higher capacity platforms. There's a shift in focus on our side to bigger aviation platforms…but we might shift priority to a bigger model [aircraft]," Schwer said.

Saudi Arabia currently operates the Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules for transport, with approval for the acquisition of 25 C-130J aircraft given in 2012 by the US Congress. Progress on the acquisition of the C-130J platform has, however, been slow to materialise.

"The C-130 payload is 20 tonnes, and the An-132D is a 10-tonne payload, so you need to acquire a bigger platform. The Air Force is looking to go into the 40-tonne size, and that is why we are in intense discussions with Airbus over the A400M.".......

Well the An132, Hercules and A400M are different planes with fairly different capabilities (and price tag). Surprised they are not considering the KC90

Same class as the C-130. If they want the larger capacity the, with the C-17 line shut, the only real options are the A-400M, or the Chinese Y-20.

Or Kawasaki C-2.

May I ask a question from a position of complete ignorance? I’m an infantryman of the non-parachuting kind, though have spent plenty of time as cargo in C-130s and C-17s. I’ve always wondered why static line parachutists need to be deployed from parachute doors rather than simply trotting off the ramp. I assume it’s something frightfully involved concerning airflow, but is anyone able to educate me? And why is it more of a problem with the A400 than other types? I haven’t found myself in one yet, but have been slightly baffled as to why we didn’t just continue with the C-130 / C-17 mix, given the availability and proven characteristics of both (then - I know that new C-17s aren’t an option now). Ta!

Interesting. I know C-17s weren’t cheap, but that seems steep. This source (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...d-a-5th-02506/) suggests ours were in a range up to about $265 per unit. Perhaps the Indian price includes support? Either way slightly eye-watering, but seems as if A400 is now getting into that range, which is somewhat painful given that C-130s are a lot cheaper and we already have C-17s for the big stuff. But then I’m wildly excited by my shiny new A3 rifle (actually made in 1986), so really big shiny things are beyond me! Anyway, about paratroopers and ramps...

Exrivo,
some earlier discussion on this back at post 330.
can get more out of the side doors in a shorter time hence greater concentration on DZ.
static line out of the ramp on c130 when following loads (particularly boats)
issue is Vortices. A400M particularly tricky. With bodies drawn back towards the aircraft rather than away from it, in spite of gravity. Hung up static line parachutist would be seriously hurt looking at the dents on the side of the trials aircraft. That’s why they used dummies!
Great publicity in early days of A400M freefall parachuting from the ramp.
Good to see my ex colleagues recently Commented for developing Air Drop capability from A400M. Airbus always assumed it would be easy and the aircraft delivered with basic clearances for parachuting and airdrop. Clearly it is quite challenging nd a long way to go.

All very interesting - thank you. As a wise man once told me ‘only a fool would jump out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, but we all know that if it’s painted grey there’s no such thing as a perfectly serviceable aeroplane...’.

Clearly not simple to design or do, and the principle of massing force as quickly as possible on the DZ makes sense. I’ve had frequent discussions with airborne mates over the years about the real utility of massed drops in C21st, especially in the context of any sort of serious opposition, and I remain unconvinced that it’s a serious act of war these days (though of course contexts in which it would certainly be of use) vice, for instance, massing with SH. Either way the vulnerability of the platforms to air defences and the difficulties of ensuring mass on target at the right time - even when we had a lot more platforms - are a significant planning challenge for someone. Not me thankfully! I do wonder, given the evident difficulties with making the A400 suitable for dropping, if Airbus didn’t take it as seriously as other aspects of the design. And given the rather small fleet we’ve purchased and the fact that we seem to be accepting it without too much squealing about the failure to meet Spec, perhaps they had a point - arguably we aren’t really serious about military parachuting beyond very specialised applications.

Interesting debate, and no doubt it will continue. In the meantime, hopefully we won’t be in too much of a hurry to retire the C-130. Still got the Dakota I suppose!

Airbus did take it all quite seriously in the beginning. Every nation had competing needs. There was quite a lot of customer engagement. They even employed a good few knowledgeable staff from those customers. Regular working groups were held in Bremen to discuss things such as the air deflectors, parachute step, the seating, the Loadmasters workstation and the cargo handling system. (Latches and Roller floor) and the parachutists oxygen system. One group had engagement over the use of CFD (computational Fluid Dynamics) to try to predict the airflow around the back with those big whirling bananas. The Airbus party line was always it will alright on the night. They were fighting against aircraft weight growth and had to make compromises. Our UK experience developing parachute and airdrop systems for the C130J should have given sufficient warning that this was a more complex issue on the A400M.

Sounds rather like design by committee, pace ‘The Pentagon Wars’ etc. An old story, especially in aviation, but certainly not restricted to that field of military procurement - just look at the mess of the Army’s Ajax programme. Ah well - lack of paradrop capability in one aircraft type is probably not the greatest challenge facing the country at the moment, but (with feet firmly planted on the sod), I shall continue to follow with interest. Thanks for all patient explanations.

Good job you weren't involved in cargo compartment temperature control, gearboxes or cruise deck angle.... not sure you would be too popular on here!