From what I have read, it is that old “axis of evil” (ho ho), France and Germany, that have been stalling the SAC contracts largely over fears how it would affect the A400M programme, particularly potential sales to other EU states.

It’s interesting that the former Swedish defence minister (name escapes me at the moment) said in 2006 of Sweden’s involvement in SAC would be cheaper and more ideal solution to meet Sweden’s needs for a strategic airlifter than buying the C-17s outright. But that has obviously changed as you mentioned. I agree that the aircraft would need to be jointly operated. Norway wanted four C-17s at the same time that Sweden had mentioned it. So joint ownership also including Finland (as a partner in SAC) – a kind of NORDCAPS C-17 would be ideal.

My instant reaction to people on this forum saying it might be Sweden was a firm no. But the more I think about it, it does seem more of a possibility largely because SAC seems to be going nowhere at the moment. At first glance, it just seemed odd given that the Swedish MoD is looking to make savings from the defence budget and have already cancelled the SEP armoured vehicle project partly as a result, and several other projects are at risk. Perhaps the money is being reallocated to the C-17 purchases. Be interesting to see future developments.

Exactly. This is the Kosovo Protection Corps, the only military-type force that Kosovo has. Despite its origins, it has no “fighting” role and is largely a uniformed rescue reponse force.

http://www.tmk-ks.org

I also mentioned France because there was murmurings of a proposed French purchase a few years back as a stop-gap until the A400M is available. When you look at French military commitments around the world right now, it becomes more obvious that the country desperately needs a big strategic airlifter. No nation can move that amount of material and men with what France currently has to use.

Interestingly, The Times reports today that India has publicly stated that it wants EADS out of the equation for negotiations over the Typhoon as one of the contenders for MMRCA contract and wants to do its business with BAE Systems only, quoting an Indian defence official as their source. Given a flurry of activity from the likes of BAE Systems, EADS and the like in India’s defence industry in the last few months, India buying the Typhoon is beginning to look like a possibility (although I’d still be surprised).

It’s not actually SALIS that NATO’s C-17 purchase will come under — that’s the lease of the An-124-100 — hence “Strategic Airlift Interim Solution”. The C-17s will come under “Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC)”.

Sweden is a partner nation in the proposed SAC arrangement. So I’d rule them out unless they have changed their minds and want their own independent airlift capability.

Germany, however, leads SALIS, but has not joined SAC. If the SALIS arrangement is ever terminated (SALIS and SAC are supposed to end up being run in side-by-side though). Germany will have no comparable aircraft to use and could be interested given the experiences of having the An-124s being based in Germany. I also believe that it is proposed that the C-17s will operate from Hungary and not Germany.

Another possible country would be France. They could do with a bit more strategic airlift right now, particularly given they won’t get the A400M (as the launch customer) until 2011. The country is also not involved in SAC. Other than that, I’d rule out any other European countries other than the UK, but the article does not refer to them as the “undisclosed nation”, mentioning discussions taking place separately.

Okay, Airbus’ sales haven’t fallen. The info that I had in regards to sales was wrong. However, the world economic outlook is uncertain and at that the present doesn’t look too rosy. And that is the common view of analysts. In fact there has been a global slowdown since 2001, which has got considerably worse in recent months and continuing problems in the US will inevitably affect the rest of the world, moreso for the developed world. And in regards to Airbus, even its own chief operating officer has been widely quoted today at a press conference at the Singapore Airshow today saying that he expects a fall in Airbus orders in 2008 due to the global slowdown and following three years of strong orders. Boeing have issued a similar outlook. No Airbus or Boeing won’t be worried at the outlook, looking towards the long-term as you say, but Airbus is irrelevant in regards to the KC-X contract.

The fact of the matter in regards to the KC-X contract debate is that even EADS’s CEO has said that it is looking to expand its business in North American region and treble its revenues from this region, particularly in defence. It wants to reduce dependence on Airbus for sales. The KC-30 falls under EADS and EADS North America and not Airbus. Thus, the KC-30 contract remains important to EADS within its defence activities. Failure to win it would be a blow to EADS’s ambitions.

I don’t think the KC-X winner will be chosen on the basis of issues, like France or Germany’s unwillingness to redeploy its forces from the northern to southern Afghanistan, or opposition to the Iraq war during Chirac’s term in office. Obviously, however, buying an all-designed American plane might be an overriding factor in the US’s decision than one that has been sourced from a major rival to Boeing (and of course, past history between Airbus and Boeing in WTO disputes could be a factor). The KC-30, if selected, will be assembled in America not Europe. Northrop Grumman would be the prime contractor, not Airbus. Some 60 per cent of the aircraft and components will come from America. Yes there would still be European involvement, but then no Western aircraft is purely built in its own country anymore. Even Boeing sources many components, fuselage parts and so forth from Europe. And some of the key parts of the standard A330 already come from US companies. Ironically, Boeing itself (in Australia though) supplies things like the undercarriage doors and floor structures. But I do agree that it would be very surprising if the KC-330 gets selected and a bold decision from the DoD. It’d even get EADS excited and it would be a major coup, because they’d finally get a significant role in a major US defence contract, which they have been hoping for since Airbus’ sales slumped. Be a bit more important than the UH-72A Lakota contract.

As far as I know, they will indeed be in airliner configuration with very little needed to be done for the AAR role. Problem at the moment is to where and how AirTanker (the consortium responsible for delivering and supporting the aircraft) will get the funding from and is allegedly struggling to find the finance because of the credit crunch. AirTanker and the MoD could end up financing the whole thing themselves, which defeats the purpose of the original PFI requirement. I agree that the RAF would find a few freighter versions extremely useful, although I’d guess that the MoD often leases such aircraft from civilian operators when needed.