The Royal Air Force has announced the successful delivery of the 22nd Atlas C1 (A400M) transport aircraft, marking the completion of the delivery phase of the project for the UK.

The four-engine turboprop touched down at its new base at RAF Brize Norton, fresh from assembly in Seville, Spain.

Air Vice-Marshal Mark Flewin CBE, Air Officer Commanding No. 1 Group, emphasised the tactical air mobility significance that Atlas has showcased, particularly in recent evacuations in Sudan.

“The latest aircraft joins a fleet already proven on operations and globally utilised in support of UK interests,” Flewin remarked.

The Atlas C1 boasts a fly-by-wire flight control system, full glass cockpit, and the ability to transport a hefty 37-tonne payload over 2,000 nautical miles. Its capabilities extend to both established and remote civilian and military airfields. Even more impressively, it can handle short, unprepared, and semi-prepared strips while operating under night vision goggles.

An ongoing retrofit programme aims to harmonise its operating configuration with other A400M operators, including France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Benelux, and Malaysia. Meanwhile, Atlas’s tactical capability will continue to expand, providing full support to UK airborne forces.

Since its introduction to the RAF in 2014, the Atlas has proven its worth time and again. From facilitating relief operations in the Caribbean and assisting in the military response to COVID-19, to playing a pivotal role in evacuating personnel from Afghanistan and Sudan, the aircraft has continually shown its versatility and reliability.

Additionally, the Atlas maintains an ongoing role in Middle East operations and NATO Air Policing operations in the Baltic region. At home, it holds a 24/7 national standby commitment, supporting the UK Border Force with maritime reconnaissance in the English Channel, long-range search and rescue operations, and overwatch capabilities.

Moreover, an Atlas unit based in the Falkland Islands ensures maritime reconnaissance, search and rescue, and medical evacuation capabilities in the South Atlantic. With air-to-air refuelling capabilities, it also assists in airdropping supplies in Antarctica.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

144 COMMENTS

  1. Roll on the follow on ( C130 replacement) order, I’ll just wait here while the digital tumble weed rolls past and watch myself turn grey…

    I fear it might be a ‘very’ long wait indeed….

    • Hi John, our Aussie cousins are committing to24 more C130 j models to replace their existing fleet and C27 fleet circa 2030.

      • Evening mate, well the Australians really are investing smartly in defence arn’t they …

        I doubt they will touch tardy European rotary wing products again, the fact is they have cast such a long shadow, they will probably be extremely cautious of any European fixed wing projects for the foreseeable future.

        It’s a pity, as in many ways A400 would have suited the Australians well, they need the lift and range the machine offers in spades, as C17 is off the menu.

        • Hi John . Yes, something seriously wrong with those NH90 helos. I believe other European operators are also looking to offload their fleets. As for the Tiger attack helo, well the less said the better!

          • Germany is scrapping its entire fleet of Tiger attack helicopters. This will lead to a capability gap as no planned replacement.
            I’m not sure how a major NATO nation central to European defence is allowed to scrap, without replacement, it’s attack helicopter fleet?
            They should just bite the bullet and get AH64 E.

          • Attack helicopters are probably dead for most player. Of course US have resources to still have them, and they might be an advantage in some situations, but the price for what they offer is too much.

          • The Tiger is another great example of the European obsession of reinventing the wheel at huge cost.

            Thank god we smelled the coffee early on and withdrew from that particular Trainwreck!

            From memory, the UK and Italy suggested in the 1980’s we base the proposed pan European attack helicopter on the Augusta Mangusta, a very sensible idea.

            The French and Germans strongly objected
            (huge surprise), insisting on a clean sheet design.

            The UK and Italy bugged out there and then….

          • UK was warned off the Denel Rooivalk by Boeing, something to do with RR engines if I remember. Proof, if ever, that we need to wean ourselves off the US.

          • There will certainly be strong interest in the German Tiger fleet, mainly from museums and scrap dealers to be fair🤣

          • They appear to be looking at the H145M.
            Update: Germany to replace Tiger attack helo with H145M
            17 MAY 2023

            “Germany plans to retire its Airbus Helicopters Tiger attack fleet in favour of acquiring more Airbus Helicopters H145M utility rotorcraft that it can arm with long-range air-to-surface missiles.

            Reuters cited a Bundeswehr spokesperson as confirming the plan that had been reported in the German national media.”

            LINK

          • AIRBUS HELICOPTERS H145M
            
            “The Airbus Helicopters H145 is a lightweight twin engine multi-role utility helicopter that represents the latest in a long line of successful German helicopter development, including the Bo-105 and BK-117.

            The H145M has seen widespread use among militaries all over the world with 15 countries operating the type, including by the US Army as the UH-72 Lakota.

            The H145M has been used in a variety of roles, including light attack, transport and utility, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and maritime security.”

            LINK

          • Well they put Spike NLOS in it and fire from 30km distance, or maybe even less but behind a hill.

          • Blimey Alex, they might want to share the secret with the manufacturer, as they can’t match those rates of availability!

            Tell me, is every NH90 in Qatar followed by a Blackhawk full of mechanics?🤣

          • Leonardo was bragging about it in a PR It is just what i know, they are the deal leader and support of more than 20 NH90 to Qatar 2 years ago.

      • Australians have no use for a tactical/strategic transport hybrid though do they? Their barely even going to have vehicles other than MLRS launchers after their latest defence review.

      • C-27J fleet is not to be replaced, they are too useful for many services within Australia and New Guinea, even going to Singapore supporting F-35.
        How it makes sense to send in 4 engine aircraft when one with 2 engines can do the same 5-10t of supplies or train paratroopers or disaster relief in small bush airfields.

        They just got a big upgrade contract of 70M$
        The Commonwealth Avionics Upgrade will begin in September 2023 at RAAF Base Amberley and is due to be completed in 2026.

    • Read a recent article (Feb. ’23) which stated the RAF (Chief of the Air Staff?) testified before HOC Defense Committee that the RAF intended to acquire six additional A400M by 2030, while the NAO was simultaneously briefing that no funds were allocated/available through 2032. A quite interesting, if somewhat schizophrenic, method of running an organization as critical as a country’s air force…🤔😳

      • Morning @ FormerUSAF, believe that the original decision to scrap our C130 fleet in its entirety was to save funds,and use those very funds to purchase the additional 6 A400M’s. That is before the NAO said that we couldn’t afford it after all!
        What a way to run a business…..

      • When dealing with topping up fleets there is a contingency budget which if not spent can be used for such items. We did this with the C17 just buying one or two each year we had spare funds.

        The USAF does the exact same thing with its unfunded wish list each year. It’s actually a sensible way to run a budget as it means items are not scrapped due to cost over runs. Issue is if we are getting contingency funds we desperately want then in to E7 AWACS to buy at-least two more to go with the two spare radars we have bought.

        Now we don’t have to run an air bridge to Afghanistan our transport fleet is fine, if we need to deploy to Eastern Europe we can literally drive there.

        If the cousins want us fighting in Asia against the ChinComs they can pay for the taxi 😀

        Works really well for the French 😀

        • Certainly understand the concept of purchasing on a contingency basis. There are at least two potential issues: 1.) Generally not able to negotiate most favorable terms and conditions, indeed a premium is often required to accommodate boutique purchasing; 😱 and 2 ) Need to ensure contractor does not shut down production line in the interim.🤞

  2. The C130J retirement will certainly leave some gaps in the near term however there is no getting away from it that A400M is a massive capability uplift.

    I hope we can see it further developed out over time as the C130 has been. Equipping all our aircraft with AAR refueling capability to be used for helicopter’s and as a supplement to the voyager fleet would be a wise idea and could be done without affecting the air tanker contract.

    • It’s an increase in capability if what u need to carry is heavier and for a longer range and that heavier payload is all going to the same destination.
      I don’t know how utilised the RAF transport fleet is or the typical loads and to what destinations those loads are carried.

    • The problem is that all the capability increases of an A400 over a C130 come with increased size and weight, they are physically too big to get in to the same space as a C130. SF capability gap. Plus the additional A400’s that were originally meant to replace the C130 capacity have quietly disappeared from the Defence Estimates.

      • A400m can land and take off in a shorter distance than C130. Both a massive aircraft, neither is fitting in somewhere small.

          • Sorry mate, what/who is RWW? I like to think I’m up on acronyms, but that one is escaping me… 🙃
            I’ve heard the same about A400M though, is it not the case?

          • Hi mate. That’s OK, sorry.

            Revolutionary Warfare Wing, or just informally “The Wing”
            The part of the SAS that used to support the SIS, gets involved in insurrections, revolutions, and other activities abroad. It reportedly has a different name now.

            Thus prime users of Herc assets assigned to SF, which will shortly be lost.

            Often they are confused with a better known organisation called “Counter Revolutionary Warfare Wing” who do the CT role, so are well known. Basically, 1 Sabre Sqn of the 4 in the regiment will rotate into that CT role as part of the CRW Wing. The RWW is a more shadowy part away from the Sqns and supposedly using only more experienced, and of course all DV cleared people.

            Regarding the SIS, they do have other military support elements beyond RWW that I am aware of, only one of which I will mention here. Usually reported ( possibly erroneously ) as the “S&D Flight” but I believe is actually “SD” Flight – “Special Duties Flight” ( there were lots in WW2 supporting SOE so there is historical precedent ) which consists of hand picked pilots from the SF Flights in 47 and 7 Sqns. They had access to 1 Herc and also 1 Puma ( with longer range tanks )

            As an aside, my FOIA exchanges with the MoD many years back were most interesting regards that subject. 😆 I can imagine quite a few bemused faces thinking, oh no its HIM again!

            Using an Atlas in some pretty austere back of beyond sometimes utter shithole locations for a role that might vary from as simple a task as dropping off SIS officers, a single individual, or a hot extraction where people are evacuated at an RV by driving directly up the ramp of the still moving aircraft ( which is often practised and RWW are/were involved in arranging the RV/DZs ) is utter folly to me. People such as Airborne, who have the experience and thus know more than I ever can read, also bemoaning their loss only reinforces my view.

            Now lost unless an Atlas or C17 is used.

            I use both the present and past tense in places as of course that stuff is highly secret and I of course do not know what happens now, only what occurred previously.

            The fact that an Atlas can also do STOL, is super duper, can fly longer and carry 37,000 whatever is utterly irrelevant to me in this particular, high niche, high risk role. Whoopy do. It is too bloody big and too valuable a limited asset to lose.

          • Spot on mate, Atlas is a great platform and there lies the problem, it’s to great, rare and valuable to lose one! Cheers mate, your too kind.

          • Revolutionary Warfare Wing (RWW): The RWW or The Wing is an elite organization of individually selected SAS operators tasked with supporting Secret Intelligence Service operations.

            They’re joined by detachments from other elite forces: the Special Boat Service, Joint Support Group, and Special Reconnaissance Regiment. This shadowy group is often referred to as The Increment.

      • Jim’s suggestion of AAR for helicopters is fine by the airTanker contract as their aircraft can’t do that role. Penalties can only be incurred if we add a capability they provide.

          • The contract really isn’t that limiting I done a big post on an AirTanker article on here last year. Based of the FOIs at the time the only penalties paid up to that point we’re, excessive wear outside limits (which I suspect is the famous incident) and a few accidental damage there were no cases of penalties for operational use or use of other assets.
            To be entirely honest the only thing stopping AAR gear for Heli use on the A400 is will power to have the capability. If we start refuelling fixed wing off then that’s our own problem and deserve the penalty

  3. Hmm, there’s still plenty of chatter about them having several technical issues and low availability rates.

    If we were any other nation we’d at the very least be hanging on to some of remaining C-130J’s until these issues are ironed out and those additional A400m are ordered instead of rapidly ditching good kit and hoping for the best!

    • Between A400M, C17, CH47 and A330 we are in a better place than any military outside the USA for strategic and theatre lift. Those C130’s are being sold to NATO Allie’s that probably need them more than us and it will generate cash from the sale. Removing an entire aircraft type is also the best money saving rather than salami slicing other capabilities.

      Not the worst outcome we have had.

      • Indeed, people seem to forget that it was always the intention for Atlas to replace C130J as a capability, and it is arguably still an uplift as such. The only reason both platforms continued in parallel for a few years was the availability issues with A400M.

        • I may be wrong but I thought initially 25 Atlas were planned to replace the older C-130K’s and run alongside the 20ish C-130J’s. The latter’s OSD was brought forward from 2030 to around 2020 in the 2010 SDSR…..which was then partially reversed in the 2015 SDSR, and then (keep up!) re-reversed again in 2021.

          • When the 25 C-130J were ordered, in the 1990s, there was talk that 30 A400M would be ordered when it was ready.

          • Well quite, the original plan was for 50 ‘FLA’ to replace the C130K fleet.

            FLA as originally envisioned, would have been jet powered, with one of the many suitable off the shelf options …. But no …. why go simple when you can re-invent the wheel and development a brand new turboprop from the ground up instead!!!

            An absolutely catastrophic idea that still casts a very long shadow over the whole programme and has without doubt cost ‘many’ potential orders.

      • Agree this second guessing every logical decision by armchair “experts” devoid of factual analysis is just silly. All new systems have teething issues and all legacy systems have sunset clauses, we need to move on.

    • I agree, we should keep at least one squadron of C-130J’s. If the issue is money then possibly hand the Hercs over to the international aid budget for peace time operations but if required by the armed forces hand them back.

      I have said and argued many times that we could use our international aid fund better and support our military capability. An example is keeping a squadron of Hercs, or two hospital ships, or two-three-four LHDs. Or we could remodel our Royal Engineers and increase their numbers by using the model of the US Army Corp of Engineers see link https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/ We could also use the Royal Signals in the same way, to support government infrastructure progams, or go and help rebuild comms in a nation hit by a natural desaster. REME could be used to service Police, Fire and NHS vehiciles, government aircraft or help in rebuilding power infrastructure etc. The AAC could have government civil transport helicopters for example Merlins or Wildcats that could then be used by the armed forces in times of need. Another example is the need for airlift, yet again we the UK could do this, without a major investment. What would I do buy twin prop aircraft and use them for the Islands of Scotland and SW England, medium range, passangers pay the cost of the aircraft, fuel, airport fees, crew and replacement aircraft after X hours of flight. So at no profit. However, these aircraft would be Para capable, light cargo, short runway capable and crewed by RAFR. The RFA could also be used to transport Government goods. By doing this we could increase numbers in some areas operating in the civil area but in time of need transfered to HM Forces. There are many ways to increase numbers for the armend forces with an indirect finance stream.

      So back to the two concrete things I spoke about Hospital Ships and LHDs. Hospital ships, buy two ten year old 350-500 passanger ships and convert them to hospital ships with 11 operating theatres, two mri scanners, four x-ray units, a full bio lab, twin helicopter pads and davits for four large rescue boats (LCVP). So a 500 passanger liner would have about three hundred beds with 50-75 ICU/Tropical Disease beds. Yes this is a higher proportion than a UK hospital however if you think on where they might operate and the patient they would get then it is understandable.

      In times of peace they could go all over the world where they are needed. Help train doctors and nurses, both NHS and military. In times of war they come under the control or the QuARNNC or is it now KARNNC? Basicaly white with a green strip and red crosses. A full scale hospital only a helicopter/boat ride away for injured troops. If the hospital ships are not in use then they could be used to help out the NHS by taking everything up to day operations, scans, broken bones etc. No patiant longer than a 48 hour stay, 72 hours to prepare for sea.

      As for LHDs and what can they bring to the international aid domain. Flexibility, many situations that arise are natural desasters such as floods, earthquakes, volcano’s and hurricane’s. Very often infrastructure such as dock, airports, roads and improtantly communications are damaged or destroyed. An LHD can bring over the beach capability, helicopter capability and carry a large amount of stores. Not only that but they also have a command and control capability that the National Government could use to co-ordinate recovery. Again in times of war these ships would revert to RN control. We could build four such ships, three paid for by the IAF and one by the MOD, two painted white, one painted grey and one in refit or repair. However in times of need the RN would have four LHDs. Combine a LHD humanitarian ship with a hospital ship based in the Middle East then you have real soft power. To build four the cost would be about the same as three so a good return on investment. To build them in the UK you have about 30-40% return in taxes a better return on investment. To build them in the NE of England or NI then people would come of benifits and have well paid jobs. Saving all around.

      How to man these LHDs on the humanitarian role, in several ways, RNR, Seaman cadets (both merchant and military, training ship), RAFR, FAA (both in final training year), NHS final year, fire brigade and other Non Profit Groups.

      So you could see how I would improve the ability of the RAF and RN with a limited expenditure to the MoD. Before someone says you can’t do that well several nations do, including European nations who have built LPHs or LHDs with moneies from their international aid budget. So why can’t we?

      Then think about the military possibility, a QE carrier group combined with two LHD groups as an Expidition force. No nation apart from the US would have that ability.

      There is one more advatage to my idea, use of equipment. If the International Aid Department had their own aircraft or ships to use then the military would not need to use theirs. This means more airframe hours for ops etc. Again a saving to HMG.

      Before someone says, YOU cant do that lets look at history, the Armend Merchant Cruiser, the Q ship the Henkel or Condor, the US Corp of Engineers, the Sea Bees and even the RY Britannia. Ships, Aircraft, and units paid for to do one thing in peace but ready for war if needed.

      What is logical for me for others is a Rant, which is over……

      • So your against the building of hospitals and schools vaccine programs etc in favour of building something akin to thunderbird’s on steroids for disaster relief then.

        Worth noting that the Tory’s have cut international aid to the bone now with the majority of the 0.5% being used for migrant housing in the UK.

        • Why does it have to be so contentious an issue ? Is overseas aid about long term commitment to improve the lives of the poorest on our planet or a way to react to the unexpected disaster that cripples a country and can cause some of the reasons for the former.
          I’m not God so I don’t know the answer to that one but it seems that the idea of putting a squadron of C130’s, a couple of Bays and mobile Medical and Engineering support is a pretty good use for the military in peace time. In fact it is very moral and a justifiable use for the OSD fund.
          And in wartime …….

      • An enlightened concept to utilize a portion of an aid budget to derive additional synergistic benefits obviously must be opposed by the political class, but damned if this outsider can deduce the logic of the implicit counterargument.🤔

        • I am All for using a portion of it but if we are having an aid budget which we do then I want to see if provide maximum utility and help as many people as possible.

          Providing vaccines, basic health and education in Africa helps tens of millions of people work their way out of poverty. The millennium goals project the UK spearheaded along with the economic uplift from globalisation has boosted life expectancy in Africa by ten years over the past twenty. 2 billion people now get an extra 10 years of life in a far better living standard than they had before. That’s something we should be proud of.

          Building an Uber private transport aircraft fleet with attached private navy to provide disaster relief helps very few people at the end of the day.

    • Great aircraft but very expensive and built in quite limited numbers so there would have only ever been 2 or 3 more up for grabs once the USAF requirement was fulfilled.

      • Last C-17 price for a single unit (No discount) is 340m USD. The A400 is roughly 285m USD.

        Not much difference, and the C-17 is unrivaled in capabilities. The RAF is harassed endlessly to provide lift to other countries with them.

        • Spot on Chris. I believe the yanks have a few C17s in storage. Could have done a deal to buy these (3 or 4) with low milage at a lower price.

  5. Tactical air lift mobility as shown in Sudan…ummmm I’m pretty sure that was strategic airlift….I did not see it noted anywhere that the A400 went hopping between airfields in Sudan ?

      • moving between two international airports 2200km apart is strategic and the theatre of operations was Sudan so movement within Sudan would have been tactical.

      • Yes it was essentially airlift between international airports…maybe they sent the c130 just incase they needed to move between smaller airfields in Sudan or maybe they only had one A400 free…

  6. Aren’t we supposed to get an extra 5 x Atlas airframes to help offset the removal of C-130J from service?

    • Supposed to, years from now.
      That carrot will no doubt vanish after a short while as memories fade and the new low of 39 aircraft filling all tasks and more becomes the benchmark.

        • It should be a growth area, and in tonnage, tech and availability, it is. But that’s not the full story when Hercules was to remain to 2030.

        • With the size of the new army you could probably fit it all on 75 aircraft in one go. Transport fleet is already well sized. The money is needed else where.

      • Hi DM. A side thought. I believe the Germans/Spanish wish to sell some of their A400. Funds from the C130 sale could be attributed buying these at lower prices?

        Perhaps the RAF simply plans to take up the C130J savings without any further 4400 investments, which I suspect will be the case.

        P.S. Your tally of 39 aircraft includes the Voyager fleet yes?

        • What’s going on with Germany? They announced a massive uplift in defence budget but then are scrapping key European built programmes. Removing capabilities off their order of battle.
          A400 going, Eurocopter Tiger going.
          Doesn’t look good. Like the French they will be knocking on our doors if they need something transported by air urgently. Or those pesky Russians and their armoured columns need sorting out where are our attack helicopters? Better ask the Brits for some Apache action.

          • Well, the A400M order was cut long time ago. The Tiger is crap, and the German Tigers have not much in common with the French ones. This was a decision simply based on the operational experience (and the civilian derived H145 are European, too).

            Germany is focusing on ordering new Eurofighters for ECM and new F35s for the nuclear role. Apart from that, a lot is happening, but it is taking time. MGCS is in trouble, however. But Germans can build tanks anyway.

          • And amusingly teamed up with France and set up a joint c130 squadron with new airframe orders too, as the A400 can’t do certain tasks that c130 can.

          • Wish I had some clarity to share re the German so-called defence uplift . You’re spot on re your points on both Germany an France, it is a concern.

        • Morning mate.
          Yes, the forward Voyager fleet of 9.
          I do not believe any further Atlas will ever arrive.
          The MoD has played that “carrot and cut” card too many times since the mid 90s for me, I’ve seen their methodology too often.
          Despite what other posters say regards Hercules “was always meant to be replaced” by Atlas, which in the route
          /strategic transport role is correct, I do not believe that included the niche SF role with 47 Sqn, which, along with numbers, is my primary concern.

          • Thanks DM, completely agree re your point on 47 sqn. Alas, another capability loss. Also a little concerning that the CH 47 operational fleet has steadily reduced. A glance at wikipedia indicates only 41 operational. Unsure how reliable this figure is though.

          • Likewise unsure re Chinook numbers. We have 60, of varied marks, I recall 38 which have been steadily upgraded, 14 newer HC6, and 8 additional newer models the mark of which I forget.

            Spilt between 7,18,27 Sqns and 28R Sqn as Chinook/Puma OCU.

            I understand that in Chinook at least, numbers are not an issue, and we lack the crews to fly them all anyway, so op taskings should not be affected by reducing to 50 or 51.

            Then again, we’ve heard that before haven’t we.

            “Surface fleet unaffected by reducing 1 more T22 from 32 to 31” spoken by the then 1SL in roughly 1998 time frame, before more cuts arrived and the fleet dropped to 19!

          • It looks like additional Chinnok is the new SF support C130 Daniele, no doubt delivered to where it’s needed by a C17, like the family bikes mounted on the back of a caravanette!

          • I know your being ironic mate, but just pointing out anyway to the uninformed.

            1. They’re not additional, as others are headed out the door.
            2. The Chinook already exists and supports SF.
            3. Several are dedicated to the role with 7 Sqn SFF, with various modifications. Indeed, the SFF may actually have expanded to the whole Sqn, but unsure.
            4. Neither do we have AAR for them anyway, or the planned newer models.
            5. Neither can they deploy with the same speed or range as a fixed wing, even if the MH47G has fat tanks. Whether ours will have the RP fitted is unknown.

            Bottom line. The Hercs need a suitable replacement, not using existing assets as a “replacement” and effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, the usual tactic.

            Rant over. This has been done to death and I don’t think some will get it till we get the reports our best are needing to borrow or beg for US assets as the assets are not available or no longer exist as this country won’t support them properly.

        • Morning @Klonkie, believe the original intention was to use the raised funds to buy the additional A400M aircraft. We have now decided we cant afford to, so that money will disappear into the treasury coffers no doubt.

    • Talk is the Spanish are shopping around their remaining unexercised delivery options (They have 27 order commitments of which 14th in an aerial tanker configuration is due to be delivered this month and their remaining delivery slots are 2025-2030). In addition to the British interest the South Koreans flew over in April to discuss swapping 6 A400M orders for Korean trainer aircraft they have on order to replace retiring Korean C-130H’s. The Korean interest is particularly around their capability to serve both as transports but also as aerial tankers when required with the A400M offering twice the fuel capacity as the KC130J (50.8 tons vs 25.8 tons).

      They may however offset the penalties of a cancellation with replacement orders, a Halcon II order of 25 Eurofighters and 25 F-35 to replace their 80 F-18’s which are being retired is reportedly imminent and backing a Spanish-Colombian co-produced drone.

  7. I thought the Special Forces were asking to keep the C130 on as they don’t rate the Atlas on the same level.

  8. A lot is made of the uplift in capability, being able to lift 37 tonnes is impressive it means that we can lift [checks notes] 0 Boxers or 0 Ajax’s

    On the basis of which we might as well of stuck with c130js

    • 3x A400 can carry 2x Boxers.

      2x A400 can carry 1 Ajax chassis each and 2x mission modules and a couple of jacks in the 3rd.

      2 in 3 is better than 0 in all.

      If you have 4 chassis forward deployed you can fly out 4 mission modules on 2x A400.

      • I was being silly and of course you point is valid.

        Its just a classic case in non-joined up thinking: we should of brought kit that could fit within the 37 tonne limit… Indeed if Ajax hadn’t been upsized to be so heavy it might even work…

        • They spent two decades trying to do just that and procured nothing. Steel being very good at stoping bullets but very heavy was the main problem.

        • Likely if we’d gone for a more ASCOD version of Ajax it still wouldn’t have fitted in A400. It’s too tall with turret. Hence mission module has to be removed and delivered separately.
          Ideally we need an air transportable light armoured vehicle series like a modern day cvrt.

      • FRES was to be airportable once.
        I do not believe the ATF will ever be utilised to carry armoured vehicles on that scale, even though it is a useful capability for Atlas to have.

        Telic, Herrick, GW1, GW2, I don’t recall the RAF ATF carrying entire armoured recc regiments. The Soviets had that doctrine.

        If the army needs to deploy in strength, Brigade, Battalion, dare I say it, Division, they would use the Points, or hopefully, for Europe, railways. which can carry hundreds.

        • The Germans have evaluated this way of transporting 2x Boxer on 3x A400 and are planning on strengthening the ramp and floor to allow a Boxer ( or equivalent ) in an A400 without any faffing around.

          My own uninformed view is this allows flexibility.

          If you have 4x Boxer on The Falklands in APC configuration as a day to day taxi or in ambulance configuration or whatever.

          If you suddenly decide you need 4x IFV or a mortar version ( or whatever version ) you can fly 4 mission modules from the U.K. or another theatre to the Falklands in 2x A400.

          I wouldn’t imagine large flights moving large numbers around or a SF/Para raid reconstructing a Boxer in a hot landing.

          Just because we may never use it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible.

          The USP of Boxer is its interchangeable and quickly replaceable mission modules. If we are never going to change any modules, ever, then that is more fool us, may as well have bought something with fixed variants.

          • I don’t doubt your Boxer module explanation, it’s a useful capability to have and I’ve no issues with Boxer apart from its vast cost and current lack of weapons.
            My comment was entirely regards the RAFs Atlas and C17 fleet moving armoured vehicles at scale.

  9. Lovely platform………but I won’t go on, and on, and on about the requirement to maintain a small fleet of Hercs!!!!!!!!

    • Mate,

      Willing to wager that USAF will virtually always be available to provide airlift for UK SF/Airborne, for the foreseeable future. May not be as timely or convenient as Uber perhaps, but we will show up eventually.😉

      • Agreed but it doesn’t portray a good posture when we remove effective and necessary platforms mate! But as ever, aside from Biden and his desperate efforts at sucking up to the Provos, thank the lord for the US!

    • I do, but apparently I’m an “armchair general” for constantly pointing out just howcmuch air asset is devoted to SFG, so maybe I’d better keep schtum than have an opinion.

      • Opinions are like arseholes mate, we all have one, but on occasion it’s not polite to get it out!!!! 😂! You are a ninja and your technical knowledge and researched opinion is invaluable to most on here, so you crack on and be an “armchair General/Admiral/and whatever the head geezer of the RAF is called” 😂😂😂👍

    • I said it before – maybe it could make sense to join the French-German collaboration on the C130… Reserve the right for pure national missions, and there you go.

  11. 22 enough really ??Falklands, home waters patrol, NATO. Other oversea commitments, humanitarian and non- humanitarian.

    • It isn’t and everyone knows it, hence the talk of a further 6 Atlas in a few years. Whether that happens is anyone’s guess.

    • Nope, nowhere near. And take 3 off that total immediately, 1 in FI, 1 always at Brize standby for SPAG, 1 ,presumably still, allocated to SDF, unless that vital capability has been gapped as well.
      The number of airframes diminish but the commitments, and need for HMG to grandstand, do not.
      And I don’t care how available and reliable Atlas is, how far it flies, how fast, or how heavy a payload it carries.
      They will end up shagged like the rest.

      • 3-4 in upgrades/refit every year until 2026. 3 in deep maintenance at any one time. 1 down south. Fleet starts to look very small.
        Same for Voyager though, we really should be getting more of both and ending that stupid PFI.

        • Unsure on Voyager myself? As the fleet they support is so small do we need extra?
          The 5 surge ones are rented out I believe so not needed currently.
          I never liked PFI myself and like the military to own it’s assets. But I’ve read both pros and cons with it so..
          I’m on the fence overall there.

          • PFI is better than no aircraft I guess.
            My issue with air refuelling is we don’t use it to its advantage and in peacetime don’t need too. The US still feels the need to have half a thousand tankers but we only have 9. Forward basing is all well and good, but most of Africa and Asia is out of our reach. Qatar and UAE probably wouldn’t want us flying combat missions out of their bases against an enemy that could respond so that really only leaves Akrotiri.
            PFI is such a waste if we are only going to have 14 aircraft, we may as well buy them all. I would be in favour if there were dozens of aircraft loaned off, with lots of reservists flying for commercial airlines, so that in wartime it could be increased.

    • But the DHL tracking numbers would have to be highly classified otherwise an adversary could log onto the DHL tracking site to see where assets in transit were at any given time. And don’t get me started on the “you weren’t in when we attempted a delivery” – or even worse “we left your parcel at your local DHL collection point at AJ Newsagents. Please remember to bring photo ID with you when you come to collect it”. At least stuff like Ajax isn’t fragile so they probably wouldn’t break it but I bet they’d have a good go.

  13. I think the RAF should retain some CH130J in case we have problems with C1( A400) it will happen in future. CH130 has been serving us for sometime and reliable. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. It’s only my opinion. Thank you.

  14. I just have to ask a question and it is about the last sentence regarding a Falklands deployment for A400M.
    I know the A400M has been refuelled in the Air from a Voyager, I know they have used it to trial forward ground based refuelling and I know that all A400M have the necessary plumbing to be used as Aerial Tankers.

    But I have never seen anything about RAF A400m actually being equipped, trialed or ever used as Aerial Tankers.

    Can George or anyone enlighten me ?

    • The Airtanker contract runs until 2035 and contains an exclusivity clause. There isn’t much point in the RAF spending money on the A400M as a tanker all the time that contract exists.

    • As Robw says – the T&C’s of the AirTanker contract are quite specific in the exclusion of any other assets used for AAR.The RAF originally had a requirement for 25 A400 with the possibility that some could be used if the situation dictated for AAR,but once the Air Tanker contract was agreed that option couldn’t be used so the order was reduced to 22.

  15. Good news BUT we have had for some time now 35/40 tactical transporters and we will soon have only 22, a cut whichever way you look at it. Also, the RAF have been told to look at ways in which to extend the life of the Puma as delays are expected with it’s replacement. What a shock.

    • Sad times for sure a shadow of a once proud military.
      The Puma! the Sea King HC4 was a much more capable airframe all round than the limited uplift of the Puma and the money invested in a such a limited number of airframes would have been better spent on the Sea King which the end user very much welcomed when it showed up in to take the load off the RAF. Ah well it will be another compromise for sure when eventually a type is chosen.

    • Yep it’s looking like puma going to be flying around longer unless they cut them take away another capability ,savings again 🙄 💰💰💰.

  16. I just despair when I see “Good News’ articles like this. The U.K is supposed to be going global but we actually reduced our Airlift Capacity and flexibility.
    Anyone going on a flight tracker will see just how hard our fleet is being used and it is scary that we have so few and we effectively wear them out.
    So we increase the A400m fleet to 25, scrap the Hercules and so one in MOD decides to find a tiny spec and magnify / distort it.

    This is based on an Official RAF press release and I just cannot believe the level of overhyped disingenuous Spin in it.

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/atlas-transport-aircraft-delivered-to-raf-brize-norton/

    To any informed individual it is a cross between “The Emperors New Suit” and a certain former US Politician describing anything as “The greatest in World History”. The only expression missing is “World leading” which usually means even the writer had his fingers crossed.

    For instance “on standby to support U.K border force with maritime reconnaissance” if that isn’t the world gone mad or some PR consultant going for a Sound bite I don’t what is. And as for the last bit about the A400m providing Air to Air refuelling in the Antarctic well yes it could but we can’t due possible reasons I’ll mention later.

    IMHO we need more mass, if we can buy the other 5 A400 we should as it reduces the W&T on the others. Also I’d look at buying 24 C27J’s, they are capable of SF support, Para dropping and would take some of the load off the A400m. I’ll not tempt fate, but given recent experience with European Aircraft it would be an idea to an alternative. Just in case something else crops up to ground or restrict the A400m fleet we would still have some Airlift.

    To cap it we continue to have folks in MOD who are apparently so focused on short term cost savings that they ignore the practical and pass it on as a victory.

    That may sound a bit harsh but let’s just look at the Achilles heal of U.K. Airlift for an example.

    IMHO it is Aerial refuelling.

    We have 8 C17, 9 P8 and 3 RC135W which we cannot refuel (no booms on our Voyagers unlike everyone else who bought A330 MRTT). And I’m willing to bet our Wedgetails will not have a refuelling probe, which is a bit stupid if you only have 3.

    Limited availability of Voyagers (sorry you ran out of fuel but it’s summer and your Voyager is being used to fly Holidaymakers to Ibizza).

    No self defence kit fitted to RAF Voyagers so can’t go anywhere hazardous (ECM and flares add weight so would restrict Airtanker summer leasing).

    No self refuelling capability as our Tankers don’t have a probe or plumbing so can’t be refuelled in the Air (same reason as above).

    Only 5 FRU fitted to our Voyagers so only those can refuel a large capacity Aircraft like A400m (££££).

    No large cargo door fitted in the cabin, so all freight has to be palletised in the holds (unless you fancy hand balling through a standard airline door). So you have to use large airfields with Air Pallet kit.

    Oh I can’t find official confirmation, but the Airtanker contract may have an exclusivity clause regarding RAF Aerial refuelling.
    Which means that despite our A400 being plumbed so they can be fitted as tankers for fixed and rotary aircraft you can’t do it till 2035.
    When you think about it that is the only logical explanation as to why we have zero Aerial refuelling capability for helicopters. Nor any trials of RAF A400m aerial refuelling, any other reason makes no sense as it is a massive (and cheap) force multiplier.

    So our entire CH47 fleet is ham strung by range, but at least we don’t waste money fitting refuelling probes. Which also explains why unlike the US we couldn’t use CH47 in the Sudan evacuation and had to use A400m and C130s instead.

    Sorry Tuesday Rant over.

    • Rant on my friend. It all makes sense to me and hopefully everyone else. Yet another pathetic, badly disguised cut.

    • PFI doesn’t make sense when 10 of the 14 aircraft are always in RAF use. If we had doubled the total to 28 and formed a RAUXAF squadron with lots of reserve aircrews, it would’ve been useful.
      Air refuelling isn’t a much needed capability in peacetime compared to how important it becomes in wartime. Only the US can afford a super large air refuelling fleet throughout peacetime, PFI and reservists should be the way we do it.
      I believe it is just an add on for Voyager to be refuelled by probes so we could still do it.
      For boom refuelling, I’ve always thought it was a nice luxury. I doubt the USAF refuels their C17 much and ours certainly aren’t getting refuelled on a regular basis from the USAF. I’ve heard the argument that P8 doesn’t need refuelling because it would run out of Sonobuoys/weapons before it ran out of fuel. Don’t know how true that is, but it does have the ability to loiter on station for 4 hours, 1,200 nmi from base so does have good range. As for E7 and RC135, as terrible as it sounds, relying on the USAF isn’t that bad. Does it make sense to operate boom refuelling for such a limited fleet? US has limited AWACS so would be happy to refuel these assets.

      • I do not agree with you about the Booms being a Luxery they would have enabled us to balance the books.
        As I understand it if an RAF Aircraft is refuelled by a Non Airtanker plane the RAF has to pay compensation to Airtanker. That compensation is balanced against fuel tanked to overseas Aircraft.
        So if we use 200,000 of fuel from overseas tankers and only tank 100,000 we pay compo on 100,000.
        Now bear in mind that the biggest user of fuel in NATO is the USAF who use the booms, not being able to refuel them is probably not a good idea.
        Unless of course you are Airtanker and want to make money for doing nothing. 🤔
        I hope that makes sense to you because it baffled the commons defense committee a few years ago.

        • Yes and no on the PFI as I said above I’ve done big comments on it before,
          AirTanker contract is exclusive to fixed wing only and limited in scope, the only thing limiting us plumbing the A400s for Heli AAR is the will to do so. Fixed wing would invite penalty but possibly not down south if the voyager was unavailable for some reason.
          If AirTanker can’t provide the service we can source elsewhere, so for example rivet joints will likely be topping up from the USAF for their Operations, that won’t incur a penalty because AirTanker can’t and it’s an operational requirement.
          When I Last checked the FOIs last year no penalty had ever been charged under the exclusivity clause, a few accidental damage penalty’s and 1 excessive wear outside of limits penalty (which I suspect is the nose dive incident).
          The 9 core fleet is the 8 military registered and the 1 Falkland air bridge civil registered jet, the other 5 are on immediate recall to service. It’s worth noting the total fleet is actually 7 KC2s & 7 KC3s, it’s just the 2 civil registered KC3s centreline HDUs are in storage at Brize to free up hold space.

          I will never argue it’s successful but it’s not as bad as made out to be when you dig.

          • Think it’s 9 tankers in service, plus a KC3 used in the VIP role. The one in the Falklands is an RAF tanker, but AirTanker operate an A330 separately to provide the airbridge.

        • I’m pretty sure the AirTanker contract only covers aircraft that AirTanker could refuel otherwise. Since A330 MRTT operated by the RAF don’t have a boom, USAF refuelling boom aircraft doesn’t cost anything. To give RAF A330 boom and remain under the PFI would probably end up costing the RAF more, as the fleet of 9 would be stretched quite thin with 1 in Akrotiri, 1 in Falklands, 1 on QRA, daily missions of RC135/E7 being by A330 would be hard.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here