Yep. The FASC boat has sailed in my view.
Yep, agree.
Haven’t been following Merkel’s attempts to form a new coalition government but IIRC, Germany isn’t to keen to let Airbus off the hook so the A400 program could be in real trouble. Not sure about possible coalition partners views on the program.
This is text from an Aviation Week mail out. Apparently they are having trouble with their website at the moment, hence the mail out. It's dated 13/2/2018
"Enders: Partner-Nation Deal Should ‘Reduce the Bleeding’ on A400MIt looks like that Airbus is going to take a big hit again. The production rate is currently slow and this slowing down will make some potential export customers even more wary.
Tony Osborne
The A400M partner nations have thrown Airbus another lifeline as the company continues its struggle to bring theairlifter’s tactical capabilities online.
The new deal, agreed through a Feb. 7 declaration of intent expected to be signed in the coming months, will rebaseline the program and “further mitigate risks remaining on the A400M program,” Airbus CEO Tom Enders says.
Airbus has so far delivered nearly 60 A400Ms to six of the eight customer nations, but the program has accrued more than €6 billion ($7.4 billion) in losses over the last eight years, with a €2.2 billion charge in 2016 alone because of penalties for the late delivery of aircraft, tactical capabilities and engine problems.
And the company has warned there may be more financial pain to come as it prepares to announce its 2017 results on Feb. 15.
Enders says the company remains committed to the A400M, but the program has suffered from “operational issues” as well as what he called a “flawed contractual setup and insufficientbudget.”
The new deal will provide “a good chance to stop or at least reduce the bleeding now and deliver the capabilities our customers need,” he says.
The 2016 charges were the prompt for Enders to restart negotiations with the A400M partner nations—Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and the UK—in an attempt to reduce the financial burden on Airbus. Enders has previously said the company had taken on a “lopsided share” of the risk on the program including—unusually—issues related to the Europrop International TP400 engine.
Some customers will draw out their deliveries for the A400M airlifter. Credit: Airbus
The contract amendment—agreed by Airbus, the partner nations and the European defense materiel agency, OCCAR—includes a new delivery plan and road map for the aircraft’s tactical capabilities.
Airbus confirmed in January that the production rate for the airlifter will be slowed starting this year. The company plans to deliver 15 aircraft during 2018 and 11 aircraft in 2019, having delivered 19 in 2017. The adjustments will provide a “sustainable future” for the A400M, Airbus says, and should allow more time to find export customers. So far, the only export order has come from Malaysia, whose four aircraft have now all been delivered.
However, last year Airbus did bid the A400M for several competitions, including in New Zealand (AW&ST Feb. 12-25, p. 37).. The status of a long-rumored but unconfirmed order from Egypt is unclear.
The new delivery plan will mean that Belgium, which had planned to take delivery of its first aircraft in 2019, will now receive it in 2020. Belgium and Luxembourg are the only two partner nations that have yet to take delivery of aircraft.
The production slowdown should also suit several of the partner nations that have attempted to offload some of their orders due to budgetary issues. France officially has 50 A400Ms on order but plans for just 25 to be in service by the end of 2025, according to its recently published military program law.
Issues with the delivery of military capabilities have been a frustration for several nations. Germany has criticized the program strongly as it is having to retain several of its elderly C-160 Transall transports in service because of concerns about the integration of defensive aids on the A400M. France and Germany are also planning to purchase tanker versions of the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules because of difficulties in developing the A400M’s helicopter-refueling capability.
Airbus Defense and Space CEO Dirk Hoke told Aviation Week at the Dubai Airshow last November that the company has made “good progress” in the development of tactical capabilities in key areas such as dropping supplies and troops, self-defense and helicopter air-to-air refueling.
The company is working with Cobham on the development of a modified refueling pod and hose that can extend farther from the A400M, allowing helicopters to refuel in cleaner, less turbulent air away from the airlifter to reduce the risk of potential collision between tanker and receiver.
The French Air Force has reportedly said aircraft availability stands at 35-40%, although this is largely caused by issues with the TP400 engine that led to an inflight shutdown of an engine in early 2016. Problems with the engine’s power gearbox are being solved more slowly than hoped. The fix, known as Pack 2, addresses problems with the input pinion plug, which was found to be prone to cracking. Europrop International is in the process of completing development of the Pack 2 fix, which is due to be certified during the first quarter of 2018, and engines will be retrofitted during engine shop visits, the engine consortium told Aviation Week."
I think that now the A400 has become to risky for NZ. There is no guarantee that the A400 will survive even it's order backlog with the main participants. If we did acquire it, we run the real risk of being left with a highly problematic orphan that will require extensive funding to keep flying. Rob makes a good point about NZ extending military platform life from 30 years to 40 - 50 years. Methinks it's time to look elsewhere and maybe the C-2. I would think that the C-2 may have more of a chance with the C-130-30J undertaking the tactical role. With the signing of the new TTP (sans USA), the NZG may just see a C-2 acquisition being advantageous for NZ - Japan relations. Assail hits the nail firmly on the head - why should we bother [with the A400]?
The A400M is also losing the value proposition. The C-2 as production increases will see its delivered unit cost drop from JPY20.8B in FY16 (only one aircraft) to JPY19.0B (NZ$240m) in FY18/19. Cut to the chase - that is NZ$60m less than than the often quoted 2013 price of Eur178m (NZ$300m) of the A400M.
I think if NZ managed to become the first foreign customer with the C-2 we would get a very good deal, in terms of long term support for the aircraft you just have to look at how the Japanese have supported the C1 through a long in service career and this is an aircraft of relatively small production base, the Japanese defence industry has a number of aircraft which fit into that category, as mentioned the range of the C2 is superior to the A400 and you are maintaining 2 engines versus 4 ( and engines with considerable commercial service experience)
Yes, but do you see C2 as more of a strategic replacement of the B 757 , or for the Hercules, or both? Also, no one has discussed how easy it would be to convert either a KC 390, C2, or even a C130 J for a VIP role, so if it can't be done easily, won't that mean additional aircraft, as a Prime minister, foriegn minister ect and his entourage cant be expected to rely on commercial?
I think logically you replace the 757 and C130 with the C2 and purchase a smaller tactical aircraft for the smaller missions, probably the C295, so you are still only replacing 2 types with 2 types, I don’t think we need an Airbus variant with AAR capability to replace the 757, it would end up only being used to support other nations forces, and they generally have their own assets in this category
The question of converting the aircraft for passenger / VIP use was mentioned in the latest Asia pacific defence article regarding the FAMC and in this regard passenger pods where mentioned. This would be easier in the C 2 and KC 390 due to there inherently lower cabin noise levels, in fact the C 2 is said to have cabin noise levels similar to commercial aircraft. However the propeller noise of the C 130 would make this a more challenging task to achieve. With a pod it would not be that challenging to achieve a reasonably comfortable passenger environment.
The P-3 is a variant of the Lockheed L188 Electra so it's nothing new. IIRC the Shorts Sunderland was based upon a pre-existing passenger flying boat. The SAAB Swordfish doesn't meet the requirements laid out in the FASC RFI. For all intents and purposes at present it's a paper platform and the RFI states that the aircraft have to be certified and in service with an air force / navy. In actuality, there are only two aircraft that meet NZ's requirement and that is the Boeing P-8 and the Kawasaki P-1.
I calculate that as only being 25 hours per airframe per annum, that seems like a very low utilisation rate, I would be ashamed if my aircraft only did that many hours per year, is this indicative of operating problems ?
One of the NH-90s (3302) has reached its 1000 hours - not the fleet.
Agreed, this is why i initially supported A400 M, in the strategic role, it would have allowed more time for it to mature in service and hopefully many of the issues it has been facing would be resolved bythe 2025 time frame, the cost of C2 does make it more appealing, but as both aircraft are similar sized I wonder if RNZAF would be able to fund the flight hours for an all C2 or A400M solution for both tactical and strategic role.
Just as a note, Air NZ's Engineering Division is a revenue stream for the company additional to flying Pax and are geared up for a wider range of aircraft than what the parent comnpany fly. It is still an engineering & maintenance centre for 737, 767 and 747 customers around the Asia-Pacific region though they are no longer in the Air NZ fleet.