Mexico starts A400M evaluation

[Indus Falcon]

Mexico starts A400M evaluation
By:CRAIG HOYLE
16 May 2014

Mexico is conducting an evaluation of theAirbusDefence & SpaceA400M, following the arrival of an example of the tactical transport in the country for the first time on 15 May.

Airbus released an image showing one of its “Grizzly” development aircraft taxiing in atMexico City’s international airport, from where it will “show its performance in a series of demonstration flights”.

Operated by a crew led by experimental test pilot Ignacio “Nacho” Lombo – one of the Airbus personnel to have been on board the type’s first flight in December 2009 – the aircraft is scheduled to remain in Mexico until 23 May. During its visit, the type will "demonstrate its capabilities to meet the challenges of this country", Lombo says.

Mexico’s air force is an existing operator of the Airbus C295 medium transport, along with rival manufacturer AleniaAermacchi’s C-27J Spartan. Flightglobal’s Ascend Online database records its current tactical airlift inventory as including a mix of fiveLockheed MartinC-130E/K Hercules built between 1964 and 1968 and one civilian-standard L-100. The service has previously shown interest in possibly acquiring a pair of new-generation C-130Js from the USA.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...FGFDN-2014-0521-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm

 

[milvipes]

Mexican armed forces: all tail but no teeth. It's logistic capability is quite good, only to support light infantry ops.

 

[Kambojaric]

Mexican armed forces: all tail but no teeth. It's logistic capability is quite good, only to support light infantry ops.

I suppose light infantry is good to fight drug gangs in dense jungle terrain? Is there any other threat that Mexico faces that requires a more heavy weight presence?

 

[vostok]

I suppose light infantry is good to fight drug gangs in dense jungle terrain? Is there any other threat that Mexico faces that requires a more heavy weight presence?

If we follow this logic, the US does not need army at all.

 

[Kambojaric]

If we follow this logic, the US does not need army at all.

The US is a global superpower with interests in various parts of the world that need protecting. I am not aware of Mexico having any territorial disputes with neighbours, nor does it fund and support proxies or governments in other countries to safeguard its interests there. I fail to see the correlation between the US and Mexico hence. Again as far as I am aware Mexico's primary security threat are drug cartels which can be countered with well trained mobile infantry rather than spending billions on AC's, latest generation fighter jets etc.

 

[Tshering22]

That'd add teeth to the Mexican forces big time. Wonder what would Mexican Air Force plan to induct in the future against drug cartels and insurgents. Maybe Brazilian EMB-314s complementing A400s.

 

[vostok]

The US is a global superpower with interests in various parts of the world that need protecting. I am not aware of Mexico having any territorial disputes with neighbours, nor does it fund and support proxies or governments in other countries to safeguard its interests there. I fail to see the correlation between the US and Mexico hence. Again as far as I am aware Mexico's primary security threat are drug cartels which can be countered with well trained mobile infantry rather than spending billions on AC's, latest generation fighter jets etc.

If someone in this world needs a strong army - that is Mexico. Because they have the most warlike neighbor on the planet.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

If someone in this world needs a strong army - that is Mexico. Because they have the most warlike neighbor on the planet.

No need for army.They have already occupied half California,New Mexico and Texas without firing a single bullet.

 

[milvipes]

No need for army.They have already occupied half California,New Mexico and Texas without firing a single bullet.

Those used be Mexican territories. And yes, the US took them from Mexico without firing a single shot.

The US has since then forced Mexico to accept many unfavorable concessions, including high "domestic" tariffs on Mexican products IN Mexico to cancel out any cost advantage local products may have over American imports. Mexico needs a way to free itself from implicit US blackmails badly.

 

[razgriz19]

Mexico does have a decent aviation product building capacity.
A lot of Bombardier products receive their wire harnesses from Mexico and other stuff as well.

 

[milvipes]

Mexico does have a decent aviation product building capacity.
A lot of Bombardier products receive their wire harnesses from Mexico and other stuff as well.

Mexican aviation components are top-notch, and I dare to say that Mexican workers are more likely to stick to specs than some Chinese.
But its domestic aviation market is quite limited due to US scrutiny over its military aviation, so no, it won't be cost-effective for Mexico to develop the capability to design & produce complete aircraft.

 

[razgriz19]

Mexican aviation components are top-notch, and I dare to say that Mexican workers are more likely to stick to specs than some Chinese.
But its domestic aviation market is quite limited due to US scrutiny over its military aviation, so no, it won't be cost-effective for Mexico to develop the capability to design & produce complete aircraft.

What i was thinking of assembling the Airbus in house instead of getting it in flying condition

 

[Donatello]

What i was thinking of assembling the Airbus in house instead of getting it in flying condition

Don't know if it would be feasible, an order for such a large and expensive plane, would be small enough. So setting up the tooling for assembling wouldn't make any sense, unless the number of aircraft on order exceed a certain amount.
The advantage of buying off the shelf is that you are assured timely delivery, training and above all, quality.

 

[Oldman1]

No need for army.They have already occupied half California,New Mexico and Texas without firing a single bullet.

No, Mexico lost Texas during the Texas Independence from Mexico. And there was the Mexican-American War.

Those used be Mexican territories. And yes, the US took them from Mexico without firing a single shot.

The US has since then forced Mexico to accept many unfavorable concessions, including high "domestic" tariffs on Mexican products IN Mexico to cancel out any cost advantage local products may have over American imports. Mexico needs a way to free itself from implicit US blackmails badly.

No, Mexico lost Texas during the Texas Independence from Mexico. And there was the Mexican-American War. So we didn't take them without firing a shot.

 

[Penguin]

If we follow this logic, the US does not need army at all.

See Canada ;-)
(The US would need a substantian navy though_)

If someone in this world needs a strong army - that is Mexico. Because they have the most warlike neighbor on the planet.

Unlike Russia you mean, which has not been involved in any armed conflict since WW2?