A400M

Big thumbs down for KC-390....

Oooooohhhh...it's a disaster, the plane is doomed, doomed I tells ya...

Alternately, stuff happens, the project picks up the pieces and learns from the incident if they can.
Ouch!

The KC-390 has certainly had some bad press recently.

Regards,
MM
 
And a bit of A-400 mach loop action.
 
Lets be honest Germany was allways going to be stuck with a load of A400 it didn't want - unless it could do what it attempted to do with Typhoon - try to chop the inflated orders but keep the production related workshare.

Whats that Hans - Your existing airfleet is a dozen C160s, you are reluctant** to place troops outside your borders and dont have world wide commitments , and you want 70 A400s no I cant see anything odd in that

**Or others are reluctant to encourage this behaviour
 
When were these two brought into RAF service?
I’m not sure which ones are going to Bangladesh but the Js were introduced between about 2000 and 2008 I think.

sadspotterhat on/ i really like that colour scheme, i bet it would effective as **** tootling through Europe and the ME at low level... /sadspotterhat off
I suspect it’s the remnants of its USAF ‘Lizard Scheme.’ They must be pushing 60 years old now!

Regards,
MM
 
@Magic_Mushroom thank you for your answer; so 20 year min airframe, not exactly selling off the family silver.
I don’t believe I said we were.

However, remember that the original OSD for the Js was in 2030s and we got over 40 years out of the Ks. Moreover, we could’ve replaced a proportion of the J fleet at a far lower price than the A400M and avoided the cost of having to maintain a third AT platform in service.

Regards,
MM
 
I don’t believe I said we were.

However, remember that the original OSD for the Js was in 2030s and we got over 40 years out of the Ks. Moreover, we could’ve replaced a proportion of the J fleet at a far lower price than the A400M and avoided the cost of having to maintain a third AT platform in service.

Regards,
MM
Indeed, I never said you did.

You'll know far more about the service life of the platforms than someone like me.

As to the politics involved with replacement... good luck with that one. Stay safe.
 
...As to the politics involved with replacement... good luck with that one...
Yep, as I’ve said previously, we’re stuck with A400M for better for worse.

Regards,
MM
 
Lets be honest Germany was allways going to be stuck with a load of A400 it didn't want - unless it could do what it attempted to do with Typhoon - try to chop the inflated orders but keep the production related workshare.

Whats that Hans - Your existing airfleet is a dozen C160s, you are reluctant** to place troops outside your borders and dont have world wide commitments , and you want 70 A400s no I cant see anything odd in that

**Or others are reluctant to encourage this behaviour

True, but Germany has been touting the things around at very 'attractive' rates to the market and no ones interested, not a sniff.

The A400M is now toxic. Its well on its way to having nearly half the planes ordered unwanted ramp tramps and surplus while Airbus is still desperately trying to find an export buyer for new ones with zero success.
 
What is wrong with the 400? Perhaps I should just re-read this thread?

If Germany are so anti warfighting, couldnt they meet their NATO requirements in the logistics role instead?
The major issue seems to be that a variety of launch customers signed up to buy planes they didn't really need in order to secure a larger share of the total work for their own country.

They now need to get the critical bits of their military back into shape so they need to make some choices about what they can afford. See the threads on the dire condition of Germany's tank and fighter fleets and how few are actually operational at any given time as an example.

For Germany, large transport aircraft fall into the "nice to have" category rather than the "must have" category.
 
The major issue seems to be that a variety of launch customers signed up to buy planes they didn't really need in order to secure a larger share of the total work for their own country.

They now need to get the critical bits of their military back into shape so they need to make some choices about what they can afford. See the threads on the dire condition of Germany's tank and fighter fleets and how few are actually operational at any given time as an example.

For Germany, large transport aircraft fall into the "nice to have" category rather than the "must have" category.
Yeah but....

It seems any German warfighting equipment falls in the nice to have category, what exactly must they have and why?

If they dont want to drop any ordnance or shoot any bullets, why couldn't they be the NATO logistics company.
 
I've always assumed that there has long existed an actual blueprint for an EU armed forces, and that each member state has previously agreed some sort of building-block contribution.

To my mind, that would explain why there appear to be so many odd or asymmetric defence procurements across Europe. E.g. we have two carriers, but no escorts and probably only enough people to man one, the Germans bid for a fleet of 70-odd A400s without any apparent need for them, etc and so on.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Blogg The Intelligence Cell 20
Infiltrator Aviation 1
Bugsy Aviation 6

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top