Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/114092/

Topic: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-17 01:13:44 and read 32767 times.

The previous A400M thread hit 300 & a news phase has started now the A400M has been handed over to the flight test department so I guess shutting down the old one & starting a fresh one is ok.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/111240/



This week a decision will be made in Berlin on the program.

[Edited 2009-11-17 01:14:05 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-11-17 04:41:19 and read 32767 times.

KC135TopBoom:
In the last thread you said this:

Quote:

Outstanding, at least one customer is forcing EADS to stick with the current contract. But, I suspect EADS is not worried, they will simply add the lost $13M per airplane to the RMAF to the European customers. I'm sure the EU taxpayers just love to subsidise the military forces of Malaysia.

IMO it is correct that foreign buyers get the aicrafts for contracted price.

I expect those countries who funded the project (and who have the the political benefit) to cope for the development cost.

It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!

The same principle applies to nearly any exported military aircraft.

A small hint: the KC-330 would be THAT opportunity for the US to benefit directly from EU tax money! The more the A-330 would be subsidized, the more benefit! Be smart!

Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Nomadd22
Posted 2009-11-17 04:55:42 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Uh....Because those subsidies would go to a foreign company instead of a domestic one? (Yeah, I know Northrop ain't foreign)

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-17 05:03:11 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Bit simplistic, but it can be looked at in that way, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.  Smile
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.

As for the A400M, I do believe that there is a market for an a/c below the C-17 and above the C-130 at least in cabin width, the question will be whether LM plays the ostrich and does not respond until the A400M has captured the entire market. If they do, expect the same furor that now exits with the KC30 to raise up when the US Air Force decides to have a competition to replace the C-130 and someone teams up with EADS to offer the A400M.

Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-17 05:31:36 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
IMO it is correct that foreign buyers get the aicrafts for contracted price.

I expect those countries who funded the project (and who have the the political benefit) to cope for the development cost.

It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!

The same principle applies to nearly any exported military aircraft.

That is very simplistic, and false. Usually countries outside of the developement funding buy these airplanes with more than just the airplane alone. there is usually a package that includes support of maintenance, spares, training, etc. That is exactly the case with Malayisa. They are paying $177M (US) for an airplane that at the time the contract was signed had a list price of $103M (US).

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
A small hint: the KC-330 would be THAT opportunity for the US to benefit directly from EU tax money! The more the A-330 would be subsidized, the more benefit! Be smart!

Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Again your assumptions are wrong. First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program. Second, the US will pay developement costs for the A-330MRTT, or KC-767. You may recall the 2008 program, and this 2009 program call for 4 SDD airplanes, to be paid for by the US Government to develope the tanker the USAF wants and needs. You are correct, EADS paid for the initial developement, but Boeing also paid for the initial developement of the KC-767, a program that began in the early 1990s. That program was one reason why the USAF selected the KC-767 lease deal back in 2002. Boeing already had a tanker program in developement. Airbus was asked to submit a tanker in 2002, but then, they did not have a program. They started the A-330MRTT program because of that lease RFP.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
Uh....Because those subsidies would go to a foreign company instead of a domestic one? (Yeah, I know Northrop ain't foreign)

Correct.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Bit simplistic, but it can be looked at in that way, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.

The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either. It does something different than the A-400M does, as the A-400M does something different from the C-17.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-17 05:41:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.

American hero Buzz Aldrin played a crusial role. When he showed the potential of these early Airbusses the ice was broken and hundreds ordered. maybe there an Aldrin statue somewhere in Toulouse..

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.

Even better the expected?  Wink

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.

So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either. It does something different than the A-400M does, as the A-400M does something different from the C-17.

Correct.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-17 06:06:28 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either.

Agree, I menat it in the vain of the quote, apologies to the a/c and its supporters  Smile

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...

Well since they are two disimilar size a/c the Air Force will have fun and games with creative numbers

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Trex8
Posted 2009-11-17 06:09:36 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!

US FMS sales frequently have charges to help repay the development of that particular system, these can be a major source of contention for foreign customers as it can add substantially to the cost.The earlier customers tend to get hit with these first and later ones don't get screwed by the Pentagon - as much anyway. One recent example has been the delay in Taiwan's Pac3 Patriot deal signing for the actual missiles, they are hoping the UAE contract gets finalized first and the UAE end up paying more of these surcharges.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-17 06:46:12 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.

So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...

In the 2002 lease deal, the USAF invited Airbus to the compitition. They did not compete because at the time, they did not have a tanker. The A-310MRTT came about slightly later,but with used aircraft, not new builds and the A-330MRTT came about much later, in 2004, IIRC. It was formerly launched in 2005 with the RAAF order.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-17 07:37:43 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
In the 2002 lease deal, the USAF invited Airbus to the compitition. They did not compete because at the time, they did not have a tanker.

Hmm, I think that is a slightly incomplete respresentation of tanker history..

The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100
aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.


A big scandal followed, people went to jail, Boeing's CEO/CFO were fired & and a settlement with DoJ of $640 mln was done. Druyin took all the blame to keep high placed people like Wolfowitz, Albaugh and Condit out of the line of fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/bu...b43f63389f4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Back to the A400M, I think the pressure on Airbus Militairy to deliver substantial numbers of transports means little slots will become available for more customers until 2016 earliest.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-11-17 07:52:53 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.

Caution! If you argue like that I could say that the C-17 is not superior to the A-400 too. At least there were RFP's that were met by both (and consequently the A-400 was chosen).

IMO superiority is based on absolute measures and not by the scope of RFP's. Only then the C-17 is superior to the A-400 in many cases.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: N328KF
Posted 2009-11-17 07:57:08 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 11):
IMO superiority is based on absolute measures and not by the scope of RFP's. Only then the C-17 is superior to the A-400 in many cases.

No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2009-11-17 07:59:02 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
American hero Buzz Aldrin played a crusial role. When he showed the potential of these early Airbusses the ice was broken and hundreds ordered. maybe there an Aldrin statue somewhere in Toulouse..

That was Frank Borman, not Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Frank Borman, Apollo 8 commander, became CEO of the now defunct Eastern Airlines and ordered the A300 at the very moment Airbus' sponsor governments were considering pulling the plug on the consortium due to a lack of sales. So it is Frank Borman that should have a statue prominently displayed in Toulouse (and barring that, you should put a framed picture of him somewhere in your living room and pay homage to him every morning before you leave for work.  Wink ).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-17 09:16:47 and read 32767 times.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 12):
it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

That's not entirely truth IMO.

- It doesn't meet its original runway requirements http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf
- Nobody wants to know anymore the real cost per aircraft.. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf
- It has unexpected cracks. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-dispute-on-production-future.html

Strong selling point : it gets ordered even if Dod / USAF say they don't need it. http://www.dailynews.com/ci_13306605

Most of all, there is no competition (if you ignore Antonov).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
That was Frank Borman, not Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Frank Borman,

You are right! Borman :



..and Frank Kolk of AA.

The A300 proved a cost / realibility killer against the Lockheed Tristar. Speaking about Lockheed (Martin) it seems the are very vague now about the Fat Herc. They think there is little market potential.

Not sure if he is saying there's no market so they are not working on it, or, we have nothing to offer so really, there can't be demand yet..


Grant played down suggestions that the company was working on a bigger version of the airlifter to carry the increasingly heavily armoured vehicles now being designed for land forces to counter the threat of road side bombs and other munitions.

The executive said the company had looked at options to understand what was technically feasible should customers desire a larger aircraft.

There is no specific request from a customer and no design work underway he said.

Studies have shown that the C-130J was capable of conducting between 95 and 97 percent of all the requests for movements in theatre, said Grant.

http://defensenews.com/blogs/dubai-a...closes-on-uae-c-130j-deal-signing/

[Edited 2009-11-17 09:54:44 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2009-11-17 10:06:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
Speaking about Lockheed (Martin) it seems the are very vague now about the Fat Herc. They think there is little market potential.

Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
Studies have shown that the C-130J was capable of conducting between 95 and 97 percent of all the requests for movements in theatre, said Grant.

Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-17 16:43:39 and read 32767 times.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.

Then they should see oppotunities I guess. Maybe the think even a fat C130 ain't good enough.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.

The C130J is a very good transport for up to 20t smaller dimensioned loads on shorter routes where using airways isn't neccesary.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Emirates2005
Posted 2009-11-17 21:32:14 and read 32767 times.

As per this website (only in Slovak) and quoting the German Focus magazine, the A400M is expected to take off on 30th November.

Let's see.  crossfingers 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-18 05:57:37 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.

Then they should see oppotunities I guess. Maybe the think even a fat C130 ain't good enough.

Or maybe they don't see a market much beyond about 200 airplanes in this class, of which EADS already has 184 orders. Maybe LM is beginning to look at an A-400M replacement.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.

The C130J is a very good transport for up to 20t smaller dimensioned loads on shorter routes where using airways isn't neccesary.

Usually, the USAF doesn't fly airways.

Quoting Emirates2005 (Reply 16):
As per this website (only in Slovak) and quoting the German Focus magazine, the A400M is expected to take off on 30th November.

That would be nice if it happens, but where did Focus get that information? I didn't expect any updates before the customer and EADS meeting tomorrow and Friday in Berlin.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EBJ1248650
Posted 2009-11-18 13:22:32 and read 32767 times.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they? So how do you compare two airplanes built to meet entirely different specifications? That's like comparing the F-4 Phantom II to the MiG-21; two entirely different animals!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-18 13:39:31 and read 32767 times.



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they? So how do you compare two airplanes built to meet entirely different specifications? That's like comparing the F-4 Phantom II to the MiG-21; two entirely different animals!

Well, the F-4 bested the Mig-21 more often than the other way around. But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today. It is a much more capable airlifter.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-11-18 19:26:32 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today.

When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: 474218
Posted 2009-11-18 19:38:55 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?

Never and nether has the A-400M.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-11-18 23:31:22 and read 32767 times.



Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
Never and nether has the A-400M.

That is what it is designed to do.

The comment was in reply to "the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today"

This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: N328KF
Posted 2009-11-19 03:53:06 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.

Listen, the A400M may be built as intended, in the numbers originally intended, and it may be a functional success, but it will never be the bargain it promised to be. There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-19 04:28:19 and read 32767 times.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).

I think I have a pretty good picture of C130, C-17 and A400M prices and capabilities and think are many thing the A400M will do better and cheaper then transports currently available. I find most of the negative press and opinions on it remarkable and unsubstantiated.

Recent programs like the A330F, A380 and A320/A330 enhancements give me confidence this will be an excellent aircraft too & the market looks bright.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-19 07:32:08 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today.

When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?



Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
Never and nether has the A-400M.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
That is what it is designed to do.

The comment was in reply to "the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today"

This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
Listen, the A400M may be built as intended, in the numbers originally intended, and it may be a functional success, but it will never be the bargain it promised to be. There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).



Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
I think I have a pretty good picture of C130, C-17 and A400M prices and capabilities and think are many thing the A400M will do better and cheaper then transports currently available. I find most of the negative press and opinions on it remarkable and unsubstantiated.

No Keesje, you don't have a clue about the pricing of the C-17, C-130J or A-400M. You have been all over the map on your numbers, none of which you ever substantiated. It is your remarks that have been "remarkable".

The pricing EADS is now DEMANDING from its European customers seems to be based on the basic model, and higher for each added capability that was originally promised and contracted for. We shall find out tomorrow from the meetings in Berlin just how much France, Germany, UK, Spain, and the rest of the European customers folded in front of the EADS threats to put their citizens out of work.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Recent programs like the A330F, A380 and A320/A330 enhancements give me confidence this will be an excellent aircraft too & the market looks bright.

Todate, I agree the A-330F program is a success. The A-380 is far from a success, it is still more than two years behind on deliverys. It is even further from making a profit. I noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success. The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG.

Even if the A-400M begins flying before 31 Dec. 2009, it still has a very long way to go during and after the flight test period. Once in service with the different EUAFs it will still need to go through the OT&E testing as well as other early programs and testing. Here is just a peice of what the C-17 had to go through back in 1993 when it began operational and training with the USAF.

http://www.military.com/news/article...assignment.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: 474218
Posted 2009-11-19 08:20:40 and read 32767 times.



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18):
Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they?

This is what several frequent posters to this forum can't seem to understand.

The C-130, the C-17 and the A400M all have different missions. If you try to have one airframe do the two different missions, you end up with it not doing either of them efficiently.

The C-130 is a technical transport designed to replace the C-119 and C-123.

The C-17 is a large transport designed to replace the C-141.

Airbus has designed the A-400M to fit right between the C-130 and the C-17 because of EU politicians.

Because the EU politicians destine the military they want to spend as little money on military equipment as possible. So in their faulty thinking, if the A-400M is sized between the C-130 and the C-17 it will be able to preform the mission of both.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EPA001
Posted 2009-11-19 08:22:54 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
It is even further from making a profit

Not true. To break even is not the same as making a profit. Airbus took the massive write-off of program development costs which means that basically every A380 delivered is money in the bank and contributes to pay for the normal development costs. With now more than 200 copies sold, the still quite young program is moving towards the right direction.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success.

The program was withdrawn by Airbus caused by the delays. The plane by itself would have performed way better than expected, as have the passenger versions of the A380.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

She is selling like hot cakes in the many thousands of numbers, is better and more comfortable then the B737-NG, and further major improvements are underway. (also for the B737-NG several improvements are being developed). So I would not call that a death struggle which insinuates that the A320-program is severely threatened. Well, i can tell you, it is not.  Wink It is a healthy competition with the modernized B737-platform which by itself is still holding her own quite well, despite some set backs like for example the smaller and noisier cabin.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-11-19 09:33:53 and read 32767 times.

Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-19 11:47:51 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG.

Surely even you can't believe that?  faint 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success.

 rotfl 
Great sentence.......

Quoting Overcast (Reply 28):
Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

Great piece of photoshopping by FI......
I presume will be the stock response..

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-19 12:42:56 and read 32767 times.



Quoting 474218 (Reply 26):
Airbus has designed the A-400M to fit right between the C-130 and the C-17 because of EU politicians.

The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armored vehicles like the German Puma's, the UK's Piranha's, French Renault AMC's AGM guns as well as medium and attack helicopters and relief goods that are now transported by C-17's and hired Antonovs.

Further more it had to be able to use the civil airways above crowdy Europe (that is why the civil certification & big engines), be able refuel fast jets as well as helicopter and fly fast & low into hostile environments with passive sensors only and operate from soft airfields..

Such an aircraft doesn't exist and they are required yesterday for ongoing relief operations in MEA and the War against Terrorism. IMO the continued comments this is just a employment project and the C-17 will do are just.. well lets say it mildly, total ridiculous.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-11-19 23:38:43 and read 32767 times.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
the C-17 has a few things over the A400M



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG

Please note: since some years and up until eternity any sold 737 did or will only happen in case of:
a. supplementary orders
b. or if the huge A320 backlog simply prevents timely deliveries

The 737 clearly struggles to win new customers. Since some years this happens very rarely and only in case b. (see above).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Jalap
Posted 2009-11-19 23:53:28 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Overcast (Reply 28):
Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

What a relief to see actual progress being made! Would love to see all 4 engines run on video and hear their sound! I suppose taxi tests are imminent and a video will follow shortly  Smile

I'm wondering, is this the largest Western prop plane ever built (not taking the Goose into account)?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-20 04:34:53 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Jalap (Reply 32):
I'm wondering, is this the largest Western prop plane ever built (not taking the Goose into account)?

If you include old Russia not, but I think the engines are by far the most powerfull props ever developped in the west.

P.S. apparently a spotter sneaked onto the platform .. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4119004093_9e6a7abe64.jpg

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-11-20 04:58:54 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
P.S. apparently a spotter sneaked onto the platform .. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...4.jpg

Keesje,
That photo is a mirror image, so watch out for the Photoshop boys!  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-20 07:05:21 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armored vehicles like the German Puma's, the UK's Piranha's, French Renault AMC's AGM guns as well as medium and attack helicopters and relief goods that are now transported by C-17's and hired Antonovs.

I was reading that the Puma weighs 31.5 tons in basic form, and 43 tons in current form (due to extra armor). We know A400M is having problems hitting the documented 37 ton payload, rumors say it's 12 tons overweight with 5 tons of weight savings identified but not yet realized. So it seems the A400M will be very stretched to handle current requirements, not to mention future ones.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Further more it had to be able to use the civil airways above crowdy Europe (that is why the civil certification & big engines), be able refuel fast jets as well as helicopter and fly fast & low into hostile environments with passive sensors only and operate from soft airfields..

Can't wait to see the photos of the A400M off-loading a Puma down range on a soft airfield.

Should be, what, 3-4 years from now?

Then I'd like to see the picture of the second A400M landing and off-loading the Puma's armor, and the third photo of the German soldiers bolting the armor back onto the Puma.

Hopefully this isn't happening while they are under fire.

Sounds sub-optimal to me, but what do I know?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Such an aircraft doesn't exist and they are required yesterday for ongoing relief operations in MEA and the War against Terrorism. IMO the continued comments this is just a employment project and the C-17 will do are just.. well lets say it mildly, total ridiculous.

And I find the constant blind faith and unwillingness to accept and deal with any issues regarding the A400M program are just... well lets say it mildly, total ridiculous, but let's take the high road, shall we?

I don't think A400M is just a jobs program per se, but I do think almost all defense contracts can be looked on as being jobs programs at some level.

My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

And yes, they aren't the only program in that position, but that doesn't make it right.

While I'm glad to see all four turning and burning, current press reports aren't echoing all the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings that we are getting here on a.net.

So, to try to keep things balanced, here's a few press reports to chew on.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/11/18/afx7134977.html

Quote:

BERLIN, Nov 18 (Reuters) - Germany opposes any contractual changes to the delayed A400M military transporter project with European plane maker Airbus, a German government source familiar with the issue said on Wednesday.

A French official said on Saturday the contract could be handled in tranches with urgent needs tackled as a priority, including co-operation between states, where necessary, and some deliveries pushed back until a later date.

Germany has little willingness to compromise, however.

'No contractual changes,' is the German position, the government source told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...lsUtilitiesNews/idUSB5471920091118

Quote:

France, Germany want A400M financial gesture from EADS

PARIS, Nov 18 (Reuters) - France and Germany want a "financial gesture" from aerospace and defence group EADS (EAD.PA) on its much-delayed A400M military transport aircraft programme, German defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said on Wednesday.

Speaking after a meeting with French defence minister Herve Morin, zu Guttenberg said France and Germany had managed to reach a common position on the matter and agreed that the contract must be respected.

"Fidelity to the contract is not just semantics," he added.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...tent/nov2009/gb20091116_764351.htm

Quote:

Airbus Parent EADS Falls into the Red

The A400M was scheduled to take flight in March of this year, but in the call, Ring said he expected the plane to take its first flight at the end of the year. The delays could have an impact on EADS' fourth quarter results as well, the company said, as it renegotiates A400M contracts amid the delays. The company has already accrued EUR 2.4 billion in charges related to the A400M delays.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/185295.asp

Quote:

EADS reports loss, warns of fourth-quarter charges

The company said it could not give full-year earnings guidance "due to ongoing uncertainties on the magnitude of the potential A400M and A380 charges in the fourth quarter."

Much depends on negotiations with customers over the A400M, it said. "EADS intends to reduce any further potential loss, but the full financial consequences of the delays will only be known once the negotiations are finalized."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ead...ns-uncertain-on-charges-2009-11-16

Quote:

EADS swings to loss, no guidance for the year

The group has already taken 2.4 billion euros of charges on the A400M. Repeated delays and the ballooning cost of the program have led some of the customer countries to reconsider their participation. South Africa has cancelled its order for eight aircraft already. Should more countries cancel, the program could well be scrapped.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-20 07:27:26 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems. Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Anyway some will forever have a problem accepting the C-17 and C-130 do not meet the current operational requirements, budgets by a mile. That won't change, the market will.

I'm not saying the A400M suffers the "not invented here" syndrom like the A380, but a more objective look at the aircraft program wouldn't hurt it seems.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-20 08:00:49 and read 32767 times.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
It is even further from making a profit

Not true. To break even is not the same as making a profit. Airbus took the massive write-off of program development costs which means that basically every A380 delivered is money in the bank and contributes to pay for the normal development costs. With now more than 200 copies sold, the still quite young program is moving towards the right direction.

Eeeeh, yes, break even is the point just before a profit is made. The profit begins at the break even point airplane 1. The A-380 program costs some 10B Euros, and delivering some 20-25 airplanes (when most of the payments are made) is not even close to that.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success.

The program was withdrawn by Airbus caused by the delays. The plane by itself would have performed way better than expected, as have the passenger versions of the A380.

The program was withdrawn because Airbus couldn't get the passenger version off the ground, or even wire it correctly.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG



She is selling like hot cakes in the many thousands of numbers, is better and more comfortable then the B737-NG, and further major improvements are underway. (also for the B737-NG several improvements are being developed). So I would not call that a death struggle which insinuates that the A320-program is severely threatened. Well, i can tell you, it is not. It is a healthy competition with the modernized B737-platform which by itself is still holding her own quite well, despite some set backs like for example the smaller and noisier cabin.

The B-737NG is also selling like hot cakes. Like the A-32X, it has a 4 year long backlog.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
Quoting Overcast (Reply 28):
Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

Great piece of photoshopping by FI......
I presume will be the stock response..

I couldn't get the FI link to work. But, I saw the picture in another reply.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Further more it had to be able to use the civil airways above crowdy Europe (that is why the civil certification & big engines), be able refuel fast jets as well as helicopter and fly fast & low into hostile environments with passive sensors only and operate from soft airfields..

Such an aircraft doesn't exist

That is correct, such an airplane does not exist.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armored vehicles like the German Puma's, the UK's Piranha's, French Renault AMC's AGM guns as well as medium and attack helicopters and relief goods that are now transported by C-17's and hired Antonovs.

It is going to have a difficult time carrying some of those vehicles. Nor can it carry the German or British MBT, but the C-17 can.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG

Please note: since some years and up until eternity any sold 737 did or will only happen in case of:
a. supplementary orders
b. or if the huge A320 backlog simply prevents timely deliveries

The 737 clearly struggles to win new customers. Since some years this happens very rarely and only in case b. (see above).

Just as the A-32X struggles for new customers. They are also selling supplemential orders to airlines that already are flying the A-32X.

Quoting Jalap (Reply 32):
I'm wondering, is this the largest Western prop plane ever built (not taking the Goose into account)?

No, that goes to the B-36. The Spruce Goose's props were bigger, but it never went into production. The B-36 props are bigger than the A-400M props, but both the Goose and B-36 had radial engines.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
P.S. apparently a spotter sneaked onto the platform .. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...4.jpg



Quoting Overcast (Reply 34):
Keesje,
That photo is a mirror image, so watch out for the Photoshop boys!

Keesje Is that you? Nice job with photoshop.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

Correct.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
I'm not saying the A400M suffers the "not invented here" syndrom like the A380, but a more objective look at the aircraft program wouldn't hurt it seems.

So, when are you going to take your own advise, or is that only intended for us on this side of the pond?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-20 08:15:57 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems.

Why do you think financial and operational/technical problems are not related?

What good is an airplane that won't be built because it's blown its budget (see A-12, VH-71)?

What good is an airplane that is so expensive you have to buy a much smaller number than the ones you are replacing (see Eurofighter, F-22)?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Now you are subjecting yourself to ridicule.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=aXZXv1GbZbEY&refer=europe

Quote:
According to the French Senate report, the aircraft frame is 12 tons overweight, reducing range or payload unless Airbus can fix it.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...blame-widely-for-a400m-delays.html

Quote:

The report, “L'Airbus militaire A400M sur le ‘chemin critique’ de l'Europe de la défense” (The A400M Military Airbus on the critical path for European defense) was jointly prepared by the Senate’s foreign affairs and finance committees, and released Feb. 10.



Quote:

Other salient points of the Senate report include:

-- Delivery of the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC), developed by the Hispano-Suiza unit of France’s Safran Group, is now tentatively scheduled for October 2009, assuming it obtains its civil certification in July. This is two years later than the contractual date of Oct. 30, 2007, and pushes delivery of the first A400M back to late 2012.

-- Delays in the navigation systems are at least as worrying as those of the engines. The Flight Management System (FMS), the GPS Air Data Inertial Reference System (GADIRS), the Terrain-Reference Navigation System (TRN) and the Terrain Masking Low Level Flight system (TM-LLF) all have experienced major development delay.

-- Empty weight will exceed specifications by 12 tonnes because of the airframe and mission systems are heavier than planned. However, EADS says payload will remain at 37 tonnes, which means landing performance may be degraded.

-- Only one or two aircraft will be delivered in 2013; delivery rates will only ramp up in 2014, and delays will not be fully caught up until 2020.

-- To speed deliveries, Airbus has offered to deliver an interim standard, which would not be capable of the more sophisticated flight modes, until avionics issues have been resolved. Delivered aircraft would subsequently be retrofitted to the full contractual standard.

-- The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

--- To date, partner governments have paid 5 billion euros into the program; Airbus has so far posted losses equivalent to 8% of this amount;

-- Governments refused to pay an extra 500 million euros for risk the reduction studies requested by industry, and Airbus Military says this led to development problems regarding the horizontal tail surfaces, the definition of the wing design, and weight estimates.

-- OCCAr, the international agency which manages the A400M program on behalf of participating governments, has been tasked with an audit whose conclusions should be completed by the end of February.

It appears to me that it is you who has selective memory. You continuously refuse to believe anything negative about the A400M, even when sources like Enders, Gallois and the French Senate's report are being used, they can't possibly be true.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Anyway some will forever have a problem accepting the C-17 and C-130 do not meet the current operational requirements, budgets by a mile.

You can't say such a thing till the true cost of A400M is determined. I've already shown one area where the A400M will have a hard time meeting operational requirements, and the trend towards heavier armored vehicles in the future works against A400M.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
A more objective look at the aircraft program wouldn't hurt it seems.

I hope you will take your own advice and do so.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2009-11-20 09:35:32 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Most of all, there is no competition (if you ignore Antonov).

Would that be the An-74?? Why hasn't this plane caught on more? Production, parts, mx, etc.?? All of the usual issues that Russian planes don't sell too well outside Russia?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-20 10:28:36 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Eeeeh, yes, break even is the point just before a profit is made. The profit begins at the break even point airplane 1. The A-380 program costs some 10B Euros, and delivering some 20-25 airplanes (when most of the payments are made) is not even close to that.

Interestingly enough, the original contract that Airbus was granted had 5B EUR for the initial batch of 180 A400Ms and Airbus has already taken EUR 2.5B as writedowns, with Airbus hinting that more writedowns may happen once the renegotiation is over:

Quote:
EADS (FR:EAD 12.72, -0.34, -2.57%) said it is entering the "difficult last phase" of negotiations over its delayed A400M program and that the production plan for the A380 is under review after slower-than-expected progress in 2009.

As a result of uncertainties over those two programs, EADS said it couldn't give a forecast for EBIT for the year.

Gallois himself cites both A380 and A400M as concerns:

Quote:
"New programs require our utmost attention. Regarding A400M, we are working with our customers to reach an acceptable solution for all parties and to put this program on a solid long-term footing," said Chief Executive Louis Gallois.

"Additionally, the A380 program is still a matter of concern; industrial and financial reviews are underway," Gallois added.

Ref: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ead...ns-uncertain-on-charges-2009-11-16

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-20 14:07:35 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
It is going to have a difficult time carrying some of those vehicles. Nor can it carry the German or British MBT, but the C-17 can.

I guess there is little need for transporting MBT by air. Dozens go on a boot and there are trucks. It's an extreme niche. BTW great article again from Andrea, she knows her public & what they like to hear. Acid towards Airbus as usual..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
-- The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003). If that had happened to the C-17 the president should have ordered a national freeday incl BBQ for the US taxpayer.

Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/

Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: CheetahC
Posted 2009-11-20 14:13:33 and read 32767 times.



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 39):
Would that be the An-74?? Why hasn't this plane caught on more? Production, parts, mx, etc.?? All of the usual issues that Russian planes don't sell too well outside Russia?

That would be the An-70, from the Ukraine.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-20 15:56:01 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems.

Oh, yes, let's focus on the technical problems.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Hmm, no mention of how I showed that the "someone somewhere" substantiating the technical problems was the French Senate.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003).

Hey, let's talk about the financial problems now!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

So the French Senate thinks the unit price will be around 215M USD.

And one of your favorite sources, AviationWeek, says:

Quote:
International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

Ref: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0on%20C-17%20Sales&channel=defense

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

Me:

Quote:
For those trying to figure out costs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

Not sure what to make of this, but:

8 / $6.2B = $775M per A-400M

8 / $3.9B = $475M per A-400M

No matter how you slice it, it's clearly no longer half a C-17 at half the cost.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-21 06:56:14 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
It is going to have a difficult time carrying some of those vehicles. Nor can it carry the German or British MBT, but the C-17 can.

I guess there is little need for transporting MBT by air. Dozens go on a boot and there are trucks. It's an extreme niche. BTW great article again from Andrea, she knows her public & what they like to hear. Acid towards Airbus as usual..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
-- The A400M%u2019s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today%u2019s prices.

Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003). If that had happened to the C-17 the president should have ordered a national freeday incl BBQ for the US taxpayer.

Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/

Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

I am, and so is Revelation. Of course you only have to sit there and ignor the facts.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems.

Oh, yes, let's focus on the technical problems.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Hmm, no mention of how I showed that the "someone somewhere" substantiating the technical problems was the French Senate.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003).

Hey, let's talk about the financial problems now!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

So the French Senate thinks the unit price will be around 215M USD.

And one of your favorite sources, AviationWeek, says:

Quote:
International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

Ref: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...fense



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

Me:

Quote:
For those trying to figure out costs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

Not sure what to make of this, but:

8 / $6.2B = $775M per A-400M

8 / $3.9B = $475M per A-400M

No matter how you slice it, it's clearly no longer half a C-17 at half the cost.

I insist on it too. You like to throw the international price of the C-17 around, then try to quote the domestic price of the A-400M for comparision. Well, I hate to break it to you, but the only surviving sale of the 4 A-400Ms to Malaysia, has now FORCED EADS to honor their 2005 contract.

It appears the "talks" between EADS and its EU customers have broken down, again. The meetings this week in Berlin provided EADS with no relief to the current contracts, and no new replacements contracts have been signed. Germany is holding EADS to its current contract. France, as usual wants to give into all of EADS's new demands. You may recall, it was France's President Charic who demanded the "Europens engine" only on the A-400M, even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go. France is going to be short sited, again in their current demands that Germany, UK, Turkey, Luxumbourg, Spain, and the Netherlands simply fold over and give EADS what ever they want to build the A-400M.

Do you know exactly what EADS is demanding from their European customers? They are demanding a BLANK and SIGNED CHECK from each of the 7 European customers.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/185843.asp?source=pimail

[Edited 2009-11-21 06:57:11]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2009-11-21 10:58:22 and read 32767 times.

The Netherlands are not taking part in the A400M. They recently acquired several refurbished C-130s and took a stake in the newly acquired 3 C-17's which they share with other NATO countries.

The C-130s currently under refurbishement by Marshal Aerospace are very late and costs are rising BTW

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-21 12:17:57 and read 32767 times.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 45):
They recently acquired several refurbished C-130s and took a stake in the newly acquired 3 C-17's which they share with other NATO countries.

Out of curiosity, why refurbished? C-130's are used extensively by all users and new one are easily availabe at higher cost, but based on the life of the frame, in the long run may be cheaper.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-21 12:55:17 and read 32767 times.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 45):
The Netherlands are not taking part in the A400M.

My mistake, I should have written Belgium, who, IIRC has 7 or 8 A-400Ms on order.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-21 15:02:31 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go.

Do you recall what engine? I thought nothing close to the requirements exist(ed). How could it have been any better.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
They are demanding a BLANK and SIGNED CHECK from each of the 7 European customers.

OMG are you sure?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-21 16:38:06 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 48):
Do you recall what engine? I thought nothing close to the requirements exist(ed). How could it have been any better.

My google searches say its the PW180, as for the specifications, these are on paper and once the political decision was made to use a local product, I'm certain the specifications when reviewed would show that the PW180 did not hack it, wish other countries would learn from the Europeans and get their act together, this forum would calm down with all the tanker and helicopter talk  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Evomutant
Posted 2009-11-21 18:05:31 and read 32767 times.

The PW180. A clean sheet design, based on some older bits. Certainly not a ready to go engine.

This old chestnut has the details: A400 Engine Selection (by Lumberton Aug 25 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)#60

Some people were pretty supportive back then. One notable contributor to this thread was always negative...  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-21 18:44:29 and read 32767 times.

I remember the thread and some of the points raised have proven to be true. Political pressure was used to determine engine selection, a new company had to be created to build the engine, some posters said this should give pause other could not see why.

Time tells.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2009-11-21 23:44:42 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
You may recall, it was France's President Charic who demanded the "Europens engine" only on the A-400M, even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go.

Actually, PWC did NOT have a engine ready to go. I've forgotten what engine core they were proposing, but what I do remember is that the engine core that the proposal was based off of didn't exist at the time of the engine selection. The major differences between the two engine bids was primarily price and risk, with PWC better on price.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-22 01:48:08 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
Interestingly enough, the original contract that Airbus was granted had 5B EUR for the initial batch of 180 A400Ms and Airbus has already taken EUR 2.5B as writedowns

That doesn't gel with this from the senate report, does it?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
--- To date, partner governments have paid 5 billion euros into the program; Airbus has so far posted losses equivalent to 8% of this amount;

EADS have currently written down 50% of the revenue they have taken so far on the programme...

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2009-11-22 06:15:56 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 46):
Out of curiosity, why refurbished? C-130's are used extensively by all users and new one are easily availabe at higher cost, but based on the life of the frame, in the long run may be cheaper.

I think it all about budgets. Buying new chinooks and the upcoming fighter replacement, acquisition of the NH-90 etc. will make budget planning very short term. Buying refurbished is cheaper then buying new when you don't take into account life-cycle costs in the long run.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-22 08:01:16 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 48):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go.

Do you recall what engine? I thought nothing close to the requirements exist(ed). How could it have been any better.

It was two engines PWC proposed, the PW180 and the PW800

Quoting Keesje (Reply 48):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
They are demanding a BLANK and SIGNED CHECK from each of the 7 European customers.

OMG are you sure?

Yes, read between the lines.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
You may recall, it was France's President Charic who demanded the "Europens engine" only on the A-400M, even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go.

Actually, PWC did NOT have a engine ready to go.

Neither did EuroProp. They were bearly formed up as a company.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-101517616.html

Keesje and I have discussed this before, but I guess he forgot.

KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7516 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted Sun Aug 26 2007 20:31:43 your local time (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6093 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Maybe the P&W would have been a superior, cheap, on time & super efiicient engine.

Maybe not.

Keesje, are you saying that P&W Canada ( a very experienced engine manufacturer) would have built a better, more efficent, more reliable, and cheaper engine than EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company) can in Europe?

Of course the decision on the engines most likely cost EADS/Airbus the Canadian cargo airplane order (they ordered the C-17 and C-130J over the A-400M).


"Originally the SNECMA M138 turboprop (based on the M88 core) was selected to power the A400M. Airbus Military issued a new Request for Proposal in April 2002 which Pratt & Whitney Canada with the PW180 and Europrop International answered. Airbus Military announced, after evaluating both designs, the selection of the Europrop TP400-D6 in May 2003."

In 2003, the TP400-D6 engine was also just a sheet of paper, essentailly, so was the company that built it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M

"The Europrop International TP400-D6 is the all-new 11,000 shp (8,200kW) powerplant for the Airbus A400M military transport plane, developed and produced by Europrop International. It supersedes the now defunct Aero Propulsion Alliance TP400-D1 M88 derivative proposed earlier. When it enters service, it will be the second most powerful turboprop after the Kuznetsov NK-12."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroProp_TP400

EuroProp was formed in 2002 with the major shareholders of;

ITP: 16%
MTU Aero Engines: 28%
Snecma: 28%
Rolls-Royce: 28%

That adds up to 100% of the company.

http://www.europrop-int.com/pages/about_epi/about_epi.htm

It is funny that EPI doesn't mention the fact their engines were not aboard the A-400M when it rolled out on 26 June 2008.

http://www.europrop-int.com/pages/ne...ilitary_transporter_rolled_out.htm

I notice they don't say when the engines and A-400M combination will begin taxi tests.

http://www.europrop-int.com/pages/news/press_releases/taxi_trials.htm

EADS hasn't said when the taxi tests will begin, including the RTO tests. Nothing new here.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-to-first-flight-but-loses-client/

It seems France and Germany are now demanding EADS honor the exsisting contracts, and pay each country some penalties, althigh not as much as the contracts allow. The UK, meanwhile is trying to decide whether they can afford to stay with the A-400M program, or cancel it altogether.

This came out last Friday, 19 Nov. 2009.

http://industry.bnet.com/government/...4/eads-facing-pressure-over-a400m/

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-22 09:15:27 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company)



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
ITP: 16%
MTU Aero Engines: 28%
Snecma: 28%
Rolls-Royce: 28%

Just run this "inexperience" by me again...........

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-22 09:52:34 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 56):
Just run this "inexperience" by me again...........

Does this mean that the new company is simply an administrative company created to get the contract, or are they going to have their own engineers, designers, etc etc. If its administrative only thats fine, all the heavy lifting wil be done by the "shareholders" you list, it would lead to the question of why a company had to be formed just for this contract. Another couple questions, are any of those companies presently making turbo props or jets only, and the issues related to the engine and its software, are they a result of the integration of these companies not being complete?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-22 12:01:36 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 53):
That doesn't gel with this from the senate report

Good point.

Since 5B/180 is 27M clearly the 5B is just the initial payment.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 53):
EADS have currently written down 50% of the revenue they have taken so far on the programme...

I have read a quote from Enders saying they already know they won't make any profit on the first batch of 180 A400Ms.

It's a shame no progress was made in Berlin this week.

As others have said, maybe things will go better after first flight.

Hopefully there won't be any last minute glitches.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-22 12:12:28 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 56):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company)



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
ITP: 16%
MTU Aero Engines: 28%
Snecma: 28%
Rolls-Royce: 28%

Just run this "inexperience" by me again...........

Well, with all the experience each individual company had, you would think their very first product as a joint venture would hav only had the normal minor bugs a new engine design would have had.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 57):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 56):
Just run this "inexperience" by me again...........

Does this mean that the new company is simply an administrative company created to get the contract, or are they going to have their own engineers, designers, etc etc. If its administrative only thats fine, all the heavy lifting wil be done by the "shareholders" you list, it would lead to the question of why a company had to be formed just for this contract. Another couple questions, are any of those companies presently making turbo props or jets only, and the issues related to the engine and its software, are they a result of the integration of these companies not being complete?

I think this is mostly a cover for the administrative portion, however, they may have also shared engineers and engineering work together. Remember, the TP400-D6 is an out growth from the TP400-D1 engine of the now defunct Aero Propulsion Alliance. The TP400-D1 grew out of Snecma's M88-2 engine that powers the Dassault Rafale fighter.

But, this is not the first time competing companies got together.
The contract to build the Boulder Dam was awarded to Six Companies, Inc. on March 11, 1931, a joint venture of Morrison-Knudsen Company of Boise, Idaho; Utah Construction Company of Ogden, Utah; Pacific Bridge Company of Portland, Oregon; Henry J. Kaiser & W. A. Bechtel Company of Oakland, California; MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. of Los Angeles; and the J.F. Shea Company of Portland, Oregon.

Back in the mid 1930s, no one company anywhere in the US could have built the Hoover Dam. So 6 major constructions companies got together and pooled their resourses to bid on building, what was then the world's biggest dam.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-22 12:17:15 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 56):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
ITP: 16%
MTU Aero Engines: 28%
Snecma: 28%
Rolls-Royce: 28%

Just run this "inexperience" by me again...........

Ok.

Quote:
Airbus A400M engine maker Europrop International has admitted it blundered in the development of a vital computer system by failing to produce the correct paperwork to allow the power plant to be certified to the required civil standards.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4078604

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-22 13:50:03 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Quoting Overcast (Reply 34):
Keesje,
That photo is a mirror image, so watch out for the Photoshop boys!

Keesje Is that you? Nice job with photoshop.

Nah, it's a german called Enders..

I wonder if any here suspect there are multi billion dollar negotiations going on with several governments, industries and ai forces involved. What they say in public isn't spontaneous..

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: 474218
Posted 2009-11-22 15:54:57 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Overcast (Reply 34):
That photo is a mirror image,

It is, I thought it was a A-400M built for the British market?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-22 17:13:22 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
Well, with all the experience each individual company had, you would think their very first product as a joint venture would hav only had the normal minor bugs a new engine design would have had.

I would have thought the experiences Boeing have had with the 787 (and Airbus with the A380) would have taught that experience alone doesn't guarantee plain sailing, especially when boundaries are being pushed.....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 60):
Ok.

Like I said......

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-22 19:30:54 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 56):
Just run this "inexperience" by me again...........



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 63):
I would have thought the experiences Boeing have had with the 787 (and Airbus with the A380) would have taught that experience alone doesn't guarantee plain sailing, especially when boundaries are being pushed.....

So are you trying to say that you're disappointed in choice of the EPI team?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-11-22 19:36:38 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 60):

You will find this to do with the DO-178B /ED-12B (software) and DO254/ED80 (hardware) standards that EADS is using for the whole A400M project, as far as I am aware, no other transport aircraft meets that standard (C-130J, C-17, C-X, AN-70). The Sukhoi superjet (not sure if it covers the PowerJet SaM146 engine) , A400M, 787, A350, and Bombardier Cseries are the first all new aircraft developed/certified to those standards.

As you may be aware from the KC-X selection process, and the KC-767/KC-30 tankers for other countries like Italy/Japan/Australia, more and more countries are requiring military airframes to be civil certified as that cuts down on the military airworthiness and certification responsibility, it also allows them to be used in humanitarian roles.

The problem with the traceability of software requirements, if it is not done correctly from the start, 90% compliance is as good as no compliance, you can throw it away.

This is evidenced with the Europrop experience, they had to rewrite the entire FADEC software again form scratch despite having a "working" version of the FADEC software. This is what the public spat was about between EADS/Airbus and Europrop.

BTW, my sources have indicated to me that Boeing has had similar compliance issues with these new standards on the 787, not in the engines, elsewhere in the aircraft, just has not been as high profile as the structural issues.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-22 20:14:39 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
The problem with the traceability of software requirements, if it is not done correctly from the start, 90% compliance is as good as no compliance, you can throw it away.

This is evidenced with the Europrop experience, they had to rewrite the entire FADEC software again form scratch despite having a "working" version of the FADEC software.

As a software professional I know traceability is crucial, and so do you, but apparently EPI didn't.

Quote:

Durham attributed the error to "the pressure of the moment."

"We didn't intentionally go down this route. The organizations involved in normal military programs work in a slightly different way to validate the software by operation and I think what happened was people kept to those processes under the pressure rather than move to the civil certification processes we had agreed to. It's a matter of what you do up front and what you do later," he said.

It's hard for me to believe it. In essense he's saying the issue just wasn't factored into their organization, and that's pretty damning.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
This is what the public spat was about between EADS/Airbus and Europrop.

Well, it's not the only reason:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...09/327465/a400m-rescue-mission.htm

Quote:

Enders also used the article to slam what he called a tendency among European military requirements for "defending diverse national requirements that offer little in terms of performance, but impact significantly on cost and deliverability". He was referring largely to the political motivations that led to the choice of an engine involving European propulsion specialists ITP, MTU Aero Engines, Rolls-Royce and Snecma.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=aXZXv1GbZbEY&refer=europe

Quote:

The natural choice for such a demanding engine was United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, based in East Hartford, Connecticut. Until Jacques Chirac, then president of France, stepped in.

"Airbus had already decided on engines by Pratt & Whitney and it was Chirac who interfered" says Hans Weber, chief executive of Tecop International, a San Diego-based consultant. "The trouble was, nobody but Pratt had even gotten close to doing such large turbo-propeller engines. So they've had a steep learning curve and they're suffering."

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-11-22 20:55:14 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
As a software professional I know traceability is crucial, and so do you, but apparently EPI didn't.

I do not think that is a fair comment. The new standards are stricter than anything people have worked with before. EPI did not know it had a problem until EASA started and rejected the FADEC software certification, I think this is more of a case of people did not design the software for a standard which came in after design started. I think this is the first turboprop engine designed to this standard.

I think it is irresponsible to advocate that Airbus/EPI did not know what it was doing, it has been working with previous versions of these standards since they developed the FBW/FADEC technology for the A320. They have a lot of experience in these hardware/software fault tolerant design, but standards change/evolve, so does the methods of compliance required by regulatory bodies.

It is unfair to suggest that EPI did not use traceability in the FADEC software at all, they failed to use procedures which meets the new requirements. As I said earlier, even 90% compliance is as good as 0% compliance.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
It's hard for me to believe it. In essense he's saying the issue just wasn't factored into their organization, and that's pretty damning.

I do not think that is a fair comment, the A400M is using standards from 2005/2006, that is after the engine started its design phase.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):

Well, it's not the only reason:

That is not what I was referring to, this Reuters article highlights the spat http://64.14.40.68/article/marketsNews/idUSLP24690620080925

EADS/Airbus said the FADEC software had issues, and EPI said it didn't have issues and was blaiming EADS/Airbus.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-23 00:45:13 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
So are you trying to say that you're disappointed in choice of the EPI team?

No, I wasn't.

I was saying that the fact that they screwed something up shouldn't be used as a measure of whether they're experienced or not. Even the best screw up sometimes.

To call the EPI partners "inexperienced" is nonsensical IMO

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-23 01:58:37 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=aXZXv1GbZbEY&refer=europe

Quote:

The natural choice for

The last link is nothing more then opinion from Andrea Rothman who has a consistent track record on Airbus reporting.

David Learmont (ex Herc driver) did an A400M article (& sim tour) in FlightGlobal blog yesterday.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/Cockpit_AC-1_A400M.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/le...09/11/will-the-a400m-fly-then.html

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-11-23 02:02:31 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
The problem with the traceability of software requirements, if it is not done correctly from the start, 90% compliance is as good as no compliance, you can throw it away.

This is evidenced with the Europrop experience, they had to rewrite the entire FADEC software again form scratch despite having a "working" version of the FADEC software. This is what the public spat was about between EADS/Airbus and Europrop.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
As a software professional I know traceability is crucial

As far as I know (being software professional too) the DO-178B standard requires traceability in a way unknow to normal software development. Basically said "each line of code must be traceable to a requirement".

And this is only one aspect. The catalog of DO-178B contains a huge list of very stringent principles. E.g.: all used tools and libraries have to comply with DO-178B too. Bye bye visual studio, ide, frameworks. The root of DO-178B software development is a empty notepad with a blinking cursor top left (though I am sure that DO-178B even forbits using notepad).

I can imagine easily that very late in the process a non-compliance issue pops up that virtually causes you to start again from scratch. E.g. if somewhere far up in the dependecy chain a component fails to comply with DO-178B.
Fascinating software development...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-23 03:59:02 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 67):
The new standards are stricter than anything people have worked with before. EPI did not know it had a problem until EASA started and rejected the FADEC software certification, I think this is more of a case of people did not design the software for a standard which came in after design started. I think this is the first turboprop engine designed to this standard.

With regard to timing, the president of EPI is disagreeing with your rendering:

Quote:

Durham attributed the error to "the pressure of the moment."

"We didn't intentionally go down this route. The organizations involved in normal military programs work in a slightly different way to validate the software by operation and I think what happened was people kept to those processes under the pressure rather than move to the civil certification processes we had agreed to. It's a matter of what you do up front and what you do later," he said.

The way I read this, he's saying that part of the company knew they had agreed to the new standard, but others either weren't informed or didn't check. The problem is that those who knew should also have known that the traceability regime directly impacts development cost and time to market i.e. these things need to be factored into the very earliest parts of project planning or you will never reach your goals.

Zeke, I think you are trying to defend the undefendable. Durham himself has given up on it, so perhaps you should too.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 67):

I think it is irresponsible to advocate that Airbus/EPI did not know what it was doing, it has been working with previous versions of these standards since they developed the FBW/FADEC technology for the A320. They have a lot of experience in these hardware/software fault tolerant design, but standards change/evolve, so does the methods of compliance required by regulatory bodies.

You say the standard was new, which was true, but the issue isn't how new it was, the issue is that no one at EPI determined if using the old standard was acceptable or not, "in the pressure of the moment".

Quoting Zeke (Reply 67):

It is unfair to suggest that EPI did not use traceability in the FADEC software at all, they failed to use procedures which meets the new requirements. As I said earlier, even 90% compliance is as good as 0% compliance.

And that's exactly why you need to check before you start.

Where I work we have early milestones in our development process where we examine exactly these kinds of things. We don't just presume what we did last time was good enough.

We do this because the cost of getting it wrong is too high, both in dollars and in time.

Now, is it "fair" for me to attribute this "blunder" to inexperience? Maybe, maybe not. It could also be blamed on willful neglect or a ton of other things, but without having any more information than what is in the public domain, it seems the most likely, because it is, as we'd say, a "rookie mistake".

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-23 12:24:12 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 61):
I wonder if any here suspect there are multi billion dollar negotiations going on with several governments, industries and ai forces involved. What they say in public isn't spontaneous..

I'm sure you are correct, the public is not seeing what is going on behind closed doors. Any negotiations would involved billions of dollars/Euros.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 63):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
Well, with all the experience each individual company had, you would think their very first product as a joint venture would hav only had the normal minor bugs a new engine design would have had.

I would have thought the experiences Boeing have had with the 787 (and Airbus with the A380) would have taught that experience alone doesn't guarantee plain sailing, especially when boundaries are being pushed.....

I don't see it as the same thing. Europrop is building an upscaled engine bases on the M-88 core. The A-380 was something totally new for Airbus, as is the A-350 and B-787 for Boeing.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
As you may be aware from the KC-X selection process, and the KC-767/KC-30 tankers for other countries like Italy/Japan/Australia, more and more countries are requiring military airframes to be civil certified as that cuts down on the military airworthiness and certification responsibility, it also allows them to be used in humanitarian roles.

That may be so but it will be limited only to those airframes that can be adapted to the military or military VIP missions. The USAF VC-25, E-4B, E-3, E-8C, C-32, C-40B/C and USN E-6B and C-40A, abd others are all fully certified. The KC-10 has many FAA certified parts, but no type certification. E-4, E-3, E-6, and E-8 only have the type certifications because of the basic B-70300B/-320B/C or B-747-200B airframes. The military gear is not civilian certified.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
You will find this to do with the DO-178B /ED-12B (software) and DO254/ED80 (hardware) standards that EADS is using for the whole A400M project, as far as I am aware, no other transport aircraft meets that standard (C-130J, C-17, C-X, AN-70). The Sukhoi superjet (not sure if it covers the PowerJet SaM146 engine) , A400M, 787, A350, and Bombardier Cseries are the first all new aircraft developed/certified to those standards.

Do you know if EADS wanted the EASA certification of the A-400M hardware and software because to may have future plans for use in civilian airplanes they may build ( a possible civilian version of the A-400M, like LM did with the C-130/L-100)?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
BTW, my sources have indicated to me that Boeing has had similar compliance issues with these new standards on the 787, not in the engines, elsewhere in the aircraft, just has not been as high profile as the structural issues.

I have heard that too, but it has been a while ago, and I thought the problems had been resolved.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
The problem with the traceability of software requirements, if it is not done correctly from the start, 90% compliance is as good as no compliance, you can throw it away.

Correct.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68):
To call the EPI partners "inexperienced" is nonsensical IMO

How would you discribe it? Immature, maybe?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
"Airbus had already decided on engines by Pratt & Whitney and it was Chirac who interfered" says Hans Weber, chief executive of Tecop International, a San Diego-based consultant. "The trouble was, nobody but Pratt had even gotten close to doing such large turbo-propeller engines. So they've had a steep learning curve and they're suffering."

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but had the PWC engines been selected, the A-400M might be in service right now.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 69):
The last link is nothing more then opinion from Andrea Rothman who has a consistent track record on Airbus reporting.

David Learmont (ex Herc driver) did an A400M article (& sim tour) in FlightGlobal blog yesterday.

Perhaps, but FlightGlobal has been an EADS/Airbus lapdog, too.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Evomutant
Posted 2009-11-23 12:56:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68):
To call the EPI partners "inexperienced" is nonsensical IMO

How would you discribe it? Immature, maybe?

They made a mistake. It happens to even the most experienced in anything ocassionally.

Are you seriously arguing that the constituent parties in Europrop are rookies when it comes turboprop technology? Or rookies when it comes to JV's?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2009-11-23 13:03:31 and read 32767 times.

I will personally attest that the French are rookies in good service when it comes to insurance and internet...

But then they share an antique banking system with the US...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-23 13:13:36 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I don't see it as the same thing. Europrop is building an upscaled engine bases on the M-88 core.

Detail (not really relevant) the M88 based TP400-D1 and Pratt & Whitney offering were both wiped of the whiteboard. The Europrop International TP400-D6 is the all-new 11,000 shp (8,200kW) powerplant for the Airbus A400M military transport plane, developed and produced by Europrop International. It supersedes the now defunct Aero Propulsion Alliance TP400-D1 M88 derivative proposed earlier.


Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but had the PWC engines been selected, the A-400M might be in service right now.

Nobody knows. P&W also had no track record in this power class. In the mean time they stumbled with the PW6000 (&PW8000) & were un selected for the 7e7.. Last week Airbus "advised" them the PW GTF might be a good idea but only if they go together with RR & MTU.. Not a track record that ensures quick & succesfull innovation of a brand new engine.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-23 15:46:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Evomutant (Reply 73):
Are you seriously arguing that the constituent parties in Europrop are rookies when it comes turboprop technology? Or rookies when it comes to JV's?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
EuroProp was formed in 2002 with the major shareholders of;

ITP: 16%
MTU Aero Engines: 28%
Snecma: 28%
Rolls-Royce: 28%

Joint ventures. Each of the four companies are successful in their own rights. As far as I know, the only one of the four who has experience on a big successful JV is Snecma. They have a 50/50 share with GE on the very successful CFM-56 engine.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 74):
I will personally attest that the French are rookies in good service when it comes to insurance and internet...

But then they share an antique banking system with the US...



Quoting Keesje (Reply 75):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I don't see it as the same thing. Europrop is building an upscaled engine bases on the M-88 core.

Detail (not really relevant) the M88 based TP400-D1 and Pratt & Whitney offering were both wiped of the whiteboard. The Europrop International TP400-D6 is the all-new 11,000 shp (8,200kW) powerplant for the Airbus A400M military transport plane, developed and produced by Europrop International. It supersedes the now defunct Aero Propulsion Alliance TP400-D1 M88 derivative proposed earlier.

I thought you were the "God of everything EADS". I guess not. The TP400-D6 engine is developed from both the failed TP400-D1 and still uses HP Compressor and the Single annular combustor from the M88-2 engine.

Technical Description
Components
Layout
Three-spool turboprop. HP spool
is contra-rotating to IP spool.
Propeller
Single 5.33-meter, eight-bladed
propeller; fully reversing. Driven by
the LP turbine. The blades are of variable
pitch design and spin at 840 rpm.
The propellers will be "handed" to
reduce some of the technical risk of
the design. The gearbox will handle
the extra machinery for the counter-
rotating units.
IP Compressor
Five-stage intermediate stage
compressor with no variable to reduce
complexity. Lightweight design
with four titanium blisk-rotors. The
IPC is located at the interface to the
nacelle and intake. Pressure ratio is
3.5:1.
HP Compressor
Six-stage compressor from the
Snecma M88-2 engine. Pressure ratio
is 7:1. Two variable stages. Ten percent
air bleed capability.
Combustor
Single annular combustor from the
M88-2 engine.

See page #2 of;

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...AHIEtbRg1HK8bBIB5QJN1T_RVIllnXwMyQ

Quoting Keesje (Reply 75):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but had the PWC engines been selected, the A-400M might be in service right now.

Nobody knows. P&W also had no track record in this power class. In the mean time they stumbled with the PW6000 (&PW8000) & were un selected for the 7e7.. Last week Airbus "advised" them the PW GTF might be a good idea but only if they go together with RR & MTU.. Not a track record that ensures quick & succesfull innovation of a brand new engine.

Well, EADS/Airbus uses PW engines on a lot of their products, don't they? Don't they build engines, or portions of engines for the A-300, A-310, A-320, A-330, A-350, and A-380? Of the four Europrop companies, only RR and Snecma actually build whole or major portions of engines for Airbus

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-23 16:13:59 and read 32767 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
Of the four Europrop companies, only RR and Snecma actually build whole or major portions of engines for Airbus

Topboom I thought you would have checked this before posting. I guess not. MTU would probably have had a share in the PW180 (and many other PW engines such as the GTF's.) ITP provides major components for e.g. the GE GENX and RR Trent 1000 & XWB turbofans..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
The TP400-D6 engine is developed from both the failed TP400-D1 and still uses HP Compressor and the Single annular combustor from the M88-2 engine.

The HP Compressor of the TP400-D6 is build by Rolls Royce. The combuster design is loosely based on that of the M88-2 but e.g significantly smaller.

Engine test run video: http://blog.flightstory.net/1425/video-airbus-a400m-engine-start/

[Edited 2009-11-23 17:01:55 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2009-11-23 17:21:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 71):
And that's exactly why you need to check before you start.

Where I work we have early milestones in our development process where we examine exactly these kinds of things. We don't just presume what we did last time was good enough.

We do this because the cost of getting it wrong is too high, both in dollars and in time.

Now, is it "fair" for me to attribute this "blunder" to inexperience? Maybe, maybe not. It could also be blamed on willful neglect or a ton of other things, but without having any more information than what is in the public domain, it seems the most likely, because it is, as we'd say, a "rookie mistake".

I would point out how badly Lockheed Martin 'blundered' with the C-130J; it was a simple avionics and engine upgrade of a well understood aircraft; it took years and millions of dollars just to shake out all of the bugs in the design and it was only until very recently did the C-130J achieve full operational status.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-11-23 21:29:08 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 71):

When exactly do you think RTCA DO-178B and DO-178C were published ?

RTCA DO-178 is not a standard as such, it is about 100 pages of guildelines without a clear method of compliance. The certification requirements remain in EASA/FAA regulations, however not only has the developer not had to comply with the new DO-178 changes, it is also EASA first time.

I do not think you are involved in RTCA DO-178 software development at all. EPI could have all the tracability the software design and code in place, and not meet for example EASA expectations on the test elements. RTCA DO-178 tracability covers three areas, software design, the actual code, and test elements.

I am the first to admit that EPI stuffed up, but as i indicated earlier, they do have a lot of experience with RTCA DO-178, but that standard is evolving. The goal posts are changing, both for the developer and for the regulator.


This is what NASA thinks ....

Quote:
General Observations
After careful review of the technical recommendations in the previous section, the technical team
made the following six general observations.
Observation 1: Aircraft Certification Offices and other approving authorities create unnecessary cost
burdens through inconsistent guidance, interpretation, and procedural requirements
for software-related issues.

Observation 2: Inconsistencies exist between the airborne and ground-based software approval
processes that create inefficiencies resulting in added costs for the industry and
potentially for the FAA.
Observation 3: The FAA is not keeping pace with rapid advances in software technology, thereby
delaying the use of potentially cost saving technology.
Observation 4: The FAA has not allocated enough people with the requisite software engineering
expertise and knowledge of DO-178B to software approval issues.
Observation 5: Software issues exist for which FAA software policy or guidance is inadequate.
Observation 6: Knowledge of and experience with DO-178B varies substantially within the industry.
These observations are interdependent, with complex cause and effect relationships. All of the
observations involve in one way or another the interpretation of DO-178B. As anyone who has read
Section 2 of this report will realize, inconsistent interpretation of DO-178B was a conspicuous theme
throughout the survey results.
DO-178B requires interpretation for the following reasons:
· DO-178B states what is required and not how to develop software;
· DO-178B has ambiguous terminology; and,
· DO-178B requires non-traditional software engineering practices, such as MCDC and tool qualification, without providing sufficient background information.

from http://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/papers/Hayhurst-tm209519-99-SSAC.pdf

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-11-24 00:51:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 71):
exactly these kinds of things

May I ask whether you develop airborne software? Otherwise I assume you have no clear picture about software development for airborne systems. "Exactly these kind of things" is far to fuzzy to comprehend the tasks that come along with DO-178B. It is an own world. I am a ground-based-software developer. Our TWDEPLOC-factor (Total workday effort per line of code) is already huge. But with DO-178B the same figure rockets to the orbit. The only sound information about DO-178B that I have learned is that it requires procedures and tasks that are beyond my imagination.

Some distinct highlights of DO-178B development:

- Embedded systems, programs run very close to the hardware, operating systems from the shelf are rare. Only this point separates the DO-178B-camp from 95% of the remaining software developing community. The experiences split accordingly.

- Tools qualification, a very hard restriction. Development tools have to satisfy the same objectives as the produced software. If you apply this rule to your development tool (I speak now about the tools that were used to develop your development tool), you quickly see a chain of dependencies that can root far back. It means that once somebody started from scratch to code a first elementary OS and basically the first text editor (both compliant with DO-178B).

- DO-178B does allow to deviate from some principles if the vendor can justify it. This relaxes somewhat the most demanding points BUT on the other hand brings in an insecurity whether the decision will be approved later. This point alone is very dangerous for projects and can cause a project to be thrown back very late in the process.

Do your software projects have all these documents?:

Plan for software aspects of certification (PSAC)
Software development plan (SDP)
Software verification plan (SVP)
Software configuration management plan (SCMP)
Software quality assurance plan (SQAP)
System requirements
Software requirements Specifications (SRS)
Software design standard (SDS)
Software code standard (SCS)
Software requirements data (SRD)
Software design description (SDD)
Software verification cases and procedures (SVCP)
Software verification results (SVR)
Software configuration index (SCI)
Software life cycle environment configuration index (SECI)
Software quality assurance records (SQAR)
Software conformity review (SCR)
Software accomplishment summary (SAS)

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-24 06:22:19 and read 32767 times.



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
I would point out how badly Lockheed Martin 'blundered' with the C-130J; it was a simple avionics and engine upgrade of a well understood aircraft; it took years and millions of dollars just to shake out all of the bugs in the design and it was only until very recently did the C-130J achieve full operational status.

Yes, there are blunders all around to choose from, no one questions that.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
I am the first to admit that EPI stuffed up, but as i indicated earlier, they do have a lot of experience with RTCA DO-178, but that standard is evolving. The goal posts are changing, both for the developer and for the regulator.

The real question then is how could EPI have come up with a budget (in terms of both time and money) to develop the software not knowing what was needed in terms of compliance? Did they just take a WAG and run with it? Seems that way to me.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 80):
May I ask whether you develop airborne software?

No (and for the record, I never said I did).

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 80):
Otherwise I assume you have no clear picture about software development for airborne systems. "Exactly these kind of things" is far to fuzzy to comprehend the tasks that come along with DO-178B. It is an own world.

I'm sure it is. I'm also sure my company would not proceed on a program if we had such uncertainty about how compliance would be assured. Maybe that's one reason I don't work in the avionics area!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-24 07:02:10 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 77):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
Of the four Europrop companies, only RR and Snecma actually build whole or major portions of engines for Airbus

Topboom I thought you would have checked this before posting. I guess not. MTU would probably have had a share in the PW180 (and many other PW engines such as the GTF's.) ITP provides major components for e.g. the GE GENX and RR Trent 1000 & XWB turbofans..

You are correct, but none of that is a joint venture. MTU would have been a subcontractor for their parts of the PW-180, as is ITP for the GEnx and RR Trent-1000 and "non" XWB" engines (the A-350 is narrower than the airplane it suppose to replace, the B-777, "XWB" is a marketing scheme).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 77):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
The TP400-D6 engine is developed from both the failed TP400-D1 and still uses HP Compressor and the Single annular combustor from the M88-2 engine.

The HP Compressor of the TP400-D6 is build by Rolls Royce. The combuster design is loosely based on that of the M88-2 but e.g significantly smaller.

Engine test run video: http://blog.flightstory.net/1425/vid...tart/

Who cares about the video? That has nothing to do with who makes what parts, or where those parts evolved from. For the record, RR is building the HP Compressor, but that compressor still eveolved from Snecma's M-88-2 engine, as did the combuster chamber design.

You are still in denial. Look again;

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
HP Compressor
Six-stage compressor from the
Snecma M88-2 engine. Pressure ratio
is 7:1. Two variable stages. Ten percent
air bleed capability.
Combustor
Single annular combustor from the
M88-2 engine.

See page #2 of;

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...XwMyQ



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
I would point out how badly Lockheed Martin 'blundered' with the C-130J; it was a simple avionics and engine upgrade of a well understood aircraft; it took years and millions of dollars just to shake out all of the bugs in the design and it was only until very recently did the C-130J achieve full operational status.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
Yes, there are blunders all around to choose from, no one questions that.

Pointblank, you do know the C-130J reached IOC with the RAF (first customer) in 2001, just two years after the first deliveries. Two years after the first deliveries to the USAFR and ANG (USAF orders came a bit later), in 2001, the C-130J and HC-130J (Hurricane Hunter aircraft) reached IOC.

There were blunders and growing pains for the C-130Js. But there are also several blunders on the A-400M program, and when (if?) it ever gets into service, it will take years before reaches IOC, and it will also have its share of growing pains.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2009-11-24 12:56:08 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
Joint ventures. Each of the four companies are successful in their own rights. As far as I know, the only one of the four who has experience on a big successful JV is Snecma. They have a 50/50 share with GE on the very successful CFM-56 engine.

3 of those 4 companies also developed the EJ200 enginers for the Eurofighter together with Italian Avio). Two of them were involved in the engine development of the Tornado (with Avio)

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-24 13:12:25 and read 32767 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
You are still in denial. Look again;

Aero Propulsion Alliance was a European aeroengine consortium set up to develop the TP400-D1 turboprop for the A400M military transport, using a modified SNECMA M88 high pressure spool as the gas generator. Early studies adopted a two shaft design with a shared-load power turbine, but a 3 shaft configuration, with a free power turbine, was later adopted.

However, Airbus considered the specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the TP400-D1 uncompetitive, so a new consortium (EuroProp International) was formed to develop the TP400-D6, with an all-new gas generator. Because of its smaller core size, the TP400-D6 runs at a higher HP turbine Rotor Entry Temperature than the defunct -D1 and consequently has a better thermal efficiency and lower SFC.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ae/aero_propulsion_alliance.htm

The D1 had the M88 hp spool (comp & turb). The D6 still has a Snecma (now Safran) turbine but a RR HP compressor. I'm not sure its still the Snecma design. D1 was 2 spool based with M88 HP section, D6 has 3 shafts so I really wonder if the compressor stayed the same..

Now this has nothing to do with the engine (Xcuse me KCTB) but today the A400M moved around under its own power.



In a series of tests spanning 90min, aircraft MSN001 was moved at speeds of up to 20kt (37km/h), with its pilots having "tested the normal, alternate and emergency braking systems, the anti-skid system, the nose wheel steering and reverse power," Airbus says. The transport also made 180° turns and was taxied in reverse, it adds.

"We were impressed with the ease with which we could taxi the aircraft in terms of the precision and ease of use of the nose wheel steering, and the effectiveness of the braking systems," says chief test pilot military Ed Strongman.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...00m-performs-first-taxi-trial.html

[Edited 2009-11-24 14:05:42 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-24 16:18:19 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 84):
Now this has nothing to do with the engine (Xcuse me KCTB) but today the A400M moved around under its own power.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 84):
In a series of tests spanning 90min, aircraft MSN001 was moved at speeds of up to 20kt (37km/h), with its pilots having "tested the normal, alternate and emergency braking systems, the anti-skid system, the nose wheel steering and reverse power," Airbus says. The transport also made 180° turns and was taxied in reverse, it adds.

"We were impressed with the ease with which we could taxi the aircraft in terms of the precision and ease of use of the nose wheel steering, and the effectiveness of the braking systems," says chief test pilot military Ed Strongman.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

It is good to see her progressing. Is there a youtube vedio, yet?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 84):
Aero Propulsion Alliance was a European aeroengine consortium set up to develop the TP400-D1 turboprop for the A400M military transport, using a modified SNECMA M88 high pressure spool as the gas generator. Early studies adopted a two shaft design with a shared-load power turbine, but a 3 shaft configuration, with a free power turbine, was later adopted.

However, Airbus considered the specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the TP400-D1 uncompetitive, so a new consortium (EuroProp International) was formed to develop the TP400-D6, with an all-new gas generator. Because of its smaller core size, the TP400-D6 runs at a higher HP turbine Rotor Entry Temperature than the defunct -D1 and consequently has a better thermal efficiency and lower SFC.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ae/aero...e.htm

The -D1 and -D6 engines both evolved from the M88-2, Europrop says so.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...XwMyQ

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-24 17:11:27 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The -D1 and -D6 engines both evolved from the M88-2, Europrop says so.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...XwMyQ

It's not Europrop, it's Teal. Probably Richard Aboulafia, reading the Program overview background section  Big grin

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-11-25 14:53:27 and read 32767 times.

I see where the thread on the plane being late (Part 4) has been closed. Since I don't want to start a Part 5--we know the plane is going to be late--I will post this here. Actually, this may warrant a separate thread.

I am keenly interested in the opinion of the "the-C17-is-too-expensive" crowd on the latest revelation by Reuters and EADS' reaction with their "guidance".

Price rise may be only option to save Airbus A400M

Quote:
Investors in EADS and suppliers are bracing for billions of euros in charges and penalties if the rescue bid fails and Boeing and Lockheed Martin are ready to fill the gap with increased sales of their own troop and cargo carriers.

Now, with an end-2009 deadline weeks away, a formula for hiking prices without any immediate burden on taxpayers appears the most widely acceptable answer to a year-long deadlock.

If adopted, such a deal could stretch the targeted total of 180 aircraft over a longer period, but result in fewer planes being handed over during the previously agreed delivery period.

It is a device negotiators typically use to engineer a unit price increase when new cash is unavailable, according to current and former arms procurement officials, and many see it as the only pragmatic starting point during the economic crisis.

One scenario, which implies an approximately 25 percent unit price increase, would call for about 40 planes being pushed back into budget limbo pending a recovery.

New cash to build them would not be needed until the decade after next, well beyond the day-to-day political horizon.

"Presentation is a problem but the hard facts are that the only way to save the A400M program is through a price increase per plane," said Teal Group aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia.

More background from Reuters.

Quote:
Two events stand out as possible decision points for a compromise. After months of bad headlines, the A400M must have a successful flight before most politicians will publicly back it.

And Airbus must open its books to auditors ordered in by the buyers to see exactly how far its costs are up.

A recent complex internal reorganization makes that exercise harder than it may sound. But the sort of cost increase most procurement experts call realistic is roughly 25 percent. That means a corresponding reduction in the main batch of deliveries -- implying 40 planes pushed back into the second 'limbo' phase.

If that working premise were applied evenly, then Britain would initially get 19 planes instead of 25, Germany 45 instead of 60, France some 38 instead of 50 and Spain 20 instead of 27.

Although each has urgent needs in Afghanistan, those nations are also the ones with most at stake in shoring up the rest of Airbus, which provides some 60,000 high-tech jobs. Each also hopes that A400M work will reinforce workshare on civil planes.

Less certain is whether Turkey, Belgium and Luxembourg would be expected to reduce their combined quota of 18 planes.

EADS response:
UPDATE 1-EADS reiterates guidance on A400M

Quote:
"With regard to recent press reports on the A400M programme, EADS explicitly cautions against the misinterpretation of figures taken out of their context as long as negotiations with the customer OCCAR and the launch nations are ongoing," EADS said in an emailed statement to newswires.

Reiterating a stance given on Nov. 16, it said: "Under a continuation scenario, which is deemed the most probable, the A400M provision for which 2.4 billion euros ($3.61 billion) in charges have already been accrued, has a wide range of possible outcomes depending on the negotiation process and could substantially alter the financial statements of EADS in the future."

The statement came shortly after German daily newspaper Die Welt cited sources close to the negotiations as saying that the cost of the A400M project would rise by 5.5 billion euros or some 25 percent from the current ceiling of 20 billion euros.

In an online excerpt of an article to be published on Thursday, it said the countries that had ordered the transport plane were willing to take on at least part of additional costs.

A Reuters news analysis earlier on Wednesday sketched out a working scenario based on 40 fewer guaranteed deliveries within the existing 20 billion euro budget, which could mean an implied 25 percent price hike per plane. [ID:nGEE5AO0Y4]

How badly do the airbus countries want these jobs? How much are they willing to pay? Will this aircraft end up costing more than a C-17?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-25 16:02:52 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 87):
How badly do the airbus countries want these jobs? How much are they willing to pay? Will this aircraft end up costing more than a C-17?

Another dramatic cost explosion lifting prices north of $300 would be neccessary for that to happen..

It sure took a lot of determination to get the C-17 in service.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Flagon
Posted 2009-11-26 05:00:25 and read 32767 times.

I've received this news summary, maybe that was already mentioned somewhere?

A400M: EADS disposed to punish South Africa
As expected, relations between EADS and South Africa are getting tense.
Despite Airbus Military's proposal to launch negotiations and find an
agreement, the South African government cancelled its order for 8 A400M and
asked for the reimbursement of the money advanced. EADS is considering
retaliatory measures such as cancelling ¤400 million orders placed with the
local industry as part of a partnership linked with the purchase of the 8
A400M.
(La Tribune, 26.11.09)

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-26 08:15:52 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 88):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 87):
How badly do the airbus countries want these jobs? How much are they willing to pay? Will this aircraft end up costing more than a C-17?

Another dramatic cost explosion lifting prices north of $300 would be neccessary for that to happen..

It sure took a lot of determination to get the C-17 in service.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y.htm

Wow, Keesje, for only $300 each for a brand new C-17, I'll order several myself, then lease them to UPS.

If you mean $300M for the domestic price, show it. No international pricing.

Your own link shows the price reduced on the C-17 in 1995 to just $172M. Malaysia, who had to hold EADS's feet to the fire to honor the 2006 contract is paying $177M for each A-400M. The European customers are paying a lot more. The new price for domestic A-400Ms is higher than what Oz and the UK paid for their C-17s.

"and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer of 1995 cost savings brought down the cost of the C-17 to $172 million in "flyaway cost" per aircraft in constant 1995 dollars]. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm

Plus, Europe is kicking in more money, by way of new "commerical loans" (can you do that with a military contract?);

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/186297.asp?source=pimail

[quote=Flagon,reply=89]I've received this news summary, maybe that was already mentioned somewhere?

A400M: EADS disposed to punish South Africa
As expected, relations between EADS and South Africa are getting tense.
Despite Airbus Military's proposal to launch negotiations and find an
agreement, the South African government cancelled its order for 8 A400M and
asked for the reimbursement of the money advanced. EADS is considering
retaliatory measures such as cancelling

No isn't EADS just being petty here? This is more bad PR for the A-400M screw-job.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-26 10:26:32 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 90):
Your own link shows the price reduced on the C-17 in 1995 to just $172M. Malaysia, who had to hold EADS's feet to the fire to honor the 2006 contract is paying $177M for each A-400M. The European customers are paying a lot more. The new price for domestic A-400Ms is higher than what Oz and the UK paid for their C-17s.

I've no idea what relevance a 1995 price for a C17 has to the 2006 price for an A400M.
What am I missing?

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-11-26 11:43:28 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 91):
What am I missing?

Nothing, It's just that most of this thread and the preceding ones are filled with petty NIH comment.

I can't be bother to get in a pissing match about costs, especially when the products are at the opposite ends of their lifecycles, and we don't know what the mature cost will be for an A400M yet.

Fact is the A400M is built, is about to fly and then I'm sure at some time in the future it will start to be delivered. Once we have around 100 built then I imagine we will see how well it does in sales to the Rest of the World, and just maybe we may be able to get some idea of its relative merits against its so called competitors.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-26 11:45:25 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 91):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 90):
Your own link shows the price reduced on the C-17 in 1995 to just $172M. Malaysia, who had to hold EADS's feet to the fire to honor the 2006 contract is paying $177M for each A-400M. The European customers are paying a lot more. The new price for domestic A-400Ms is higher than what Oz and the UK paid for their C-17s.

I've no idea what relevance a 1995 price for a C17 has to the 2006 price for an A400M.
What am I missing?

No sir, you are not missing anything. I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too. He does not understand the sales to many countries often, but not always, include several packages for training, maintenance, spares, etc. He does not understand that this is not unique to Boeing, or other US OEMs. EADS also sells military aircraft internationally, and the prices will vary widely from country to country depending on options and packages.

Keesje also claimed the price for a C-17, alone is over $300M US, or about 183M Euros (current exchange rate is $1 US equils 1.39 Euros), per airplane, without options and/or packages.

He began this by trying to deny the current domestic price per A-400M is at, or very near the current domestic price per C-17. The current USAF fly away price per C-17 is $202M US (about 122M Euros). The current contract (2005 contracts) fly away price per A-400M is 108M-115M Euros ($150.12M US-$159.85M US) , depending on options. If EADS gets the price they want, a 30% increase, then each domestic A-400M would cost 140.4M-149.5M Euros ($195.156M US-$207.805M US), more than the domestic price of a C-17A/ER if the USAF bought the A-400M, at Europe's pricing, and all the options.

Do I need to run the numbers for a 25% increase in the A-400M pricing, which are the current rumors?

If we converted the 1995 USAF price per C-17 ($172M US is equil to 104.92M Euros today), it compares directly to the 2005-2009 price of the A-400M (108M Euros for the basic version), without adjustments for inflation.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-26 13:00:32 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too.

If the A400M is to compete with the A400M (which it doesn't IMO) we are talking export price. I have summed up many orders many times and they point north of $ 300 million. Feel free to ignore again.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...2388/



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too.

KC135TopBoom I quoted the prices international and domestic for the C-17 many times with many sources. Somehow you keep forgetting them.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pol...022609_fy10_topline_weapons_costs/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
He does not understand the sales to many countries often, but not always, include several packages for training, maintenance, spares, etc

A C-17 costed $172 million, 12 years ago.

The acquisition community could hardly endure these headlines and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer of 1995 cost savings brought down the cost of the C-17 to $172 million in "flyaway cost" per aircraft in constant 1995 dollars].
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm

Prices paid in the years after by the USAF:

1997 : 275 million / ac
1998 : 255 million / ac
1999 : 230 million / ac
2000 : 206 million / ac
2001 : 268 million / ac

https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/843

"A defense policy bill passed by Congress authorized $2.1 billion for six more C-17s, but the appropriations bill did not provide any funding, which means lawmakers will have to address any funding issues when they consider the war spending request, expected in spring 2009."
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssA...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

-> $350M a ship

C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive – the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft. Constant US government pressure reduced that price slightly but these numbers vary depending on what is being counted. DND originally estimated the cost of 6 C-17s at $1-to-$1.6B.[3] But the cost given for the new Airlift Capability Program-Strategic is $3.4B for only 4 C-17s (or US$762.5M each) due to a 20 year maintenance deal. Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.
http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm

-> $330M a ship

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency today notified Congress of a possible $2 billion sale of C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft and related equipment to Australia.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93258,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

-> $500M a ship

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/

Since the last USAF prices inflation has been high as you know. Recent orders, qoutes all point in a direction that is clear to (almost) everyone. Saying the price for the C-17 has tumbled in the last 8 yrs ago is a.. choice.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
If we converted the 1995 USAF price per C-17 ($172M US is equil to 104.92M Euros today), it compares directly to the 2005-2009 price of the A-400M (108M Euros for the basic version), without adjustments for inflation.

KC135Topboom, you blame for using 1-2 year old sources on A400M long term market forecasts. Now just look at what you are claiming. It's non-sense.

US inflation has been around 3% for the last 15 yrs. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2008/images/0811.h2.jpg

Something that costed $268m in 2001 costs $350m in 2010 based on inflation alone in the US.

 bored 

I must say I'm getting a bit tired of stating & backing up endlessly what seems obvious to me. The C17 and A400M are not only in a different payload class, but also in a different price class..

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Nomadd22
Posted 2009-11-26 14:53:41 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):

US inflation has been around 3% for the last 15 yrs. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2008/images/0811.h2.jpg

Something that costed $268m in 2001 costs $350m in 2010 based on inflation alone in the US.

More like 315 million in 2010. That chart is garbage. Both the past numbers and future projections have no basis in reality. Kind of like most of someone's numbers. If anybody cares, here's a chart with a little closer relationship with the truth.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-26 16:31:40 and read 32767 times.

there is a video library with taxiing, high power engine testing

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx

The enegines seems to be doing fine now.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Portals/1/Gallery/a400m_propeller_msn1_3.jpg

Now for the high speed tetst  yummy 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-27 08:39:35 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too.

If the A400M is to compete with the A400M (which it doesn't IMO) we are talking export price. I have summed up many orders many times and they point north of $ 300 million. Feel free to ignore again.

I agree the C-17 and A-400M are different classes of airplanes. A few differences, the FF of the C-17 took place 23 months after originally scheduled, with the FF of the A-400M, we are at 46 month late. The C-17 flys and meets or exceeds all of its mission requirements, the A-400M doesn't. None of your references for a fly away unit of the C-17 are creditable. Each international sale included various other packages, including maintenance contracts for XX years (20, 25, 30, or 35 years), they included full spares funding for the period of the maintneance contrats, including engines, they include various levels of training and training support, they include flight scheduling for combat, humanatairing, training, and maintenance, including depot level support, and include other factors unique to each customer.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too.

KC135TopBoom I quoted the prices international and domestic for the C-17 many times with many sources. Somehow you keep forgetting them.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pol...osts/

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that South Africa sited a price of over $750M US (at the last price increase for the SAAF) per A-400M for each of their 8 airplanes. That price included a 20 year maintenance support, up to 4 new/refurbished engines per aircraft over 20 years, limited other spares, limited airframe maintenence, no depot level support, initial training by the French Air Force (not EADS), no follow-on training, and no in country support from EADS.

EADS is disputing those cost numbers. Why? Because if true, no other international customer will buy half a contract support for an airplane with half the capability of a C-17 at twice the international price, if we use YOUR numbers. Why do you think EADS so quickly after the SAAF contract cancelation reafremed the Malayisa order, for LESS than what its European customers will end up paying. EADS chose to honor the Malayisa contract from 2006, dispite the losse they will have to take, but then again, it is only 4 airplanes.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
He does not understand the sales to many countries often, but not always, include several packages for training, maintenance, spares, etc

A C-17 costed $172 million, 12 years ago.

The acquisition community could hardly endure these headlines and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer of 1995 cost savings brought down the cost of the C-17 to $172 million in "flyaway cost" per aircraft in constant 1995 dollars].
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm

Prices paid in the years after by the USAF:

1997 : 275 million / ac
1998 : 255 million / ac
1999 : 230 million / ac
2000 : 206 million / ac
2001 : 268 million / ac

https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/843

Wrong, look at the prices from the US Congress, who wrote the checks for each airplane (actually the USAF wrote the checks, with Congressional approval). The USAF has not paid more than $202M per airplane after the first 40 airplanes were bought. Since Boeing took over this contract when they aquired MD, the fly away price has remained either constant, or slightlt lowered. Boeing has put billions in cost savings into the line.

The one acception to the $202M price per C-17 was the $220M for 12 C-17s that have additional options the others do not have. I am not going into what those options are.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
"A defense policy bill passed by Congress authorized $2.1 billion for six more C-17s, but the appropriations bill did not provide any funding, which means lawmakers will have to address any funding issues when they consider the war spending request, expected in spring 2009."
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssA...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

-> $350M a ship

You do know that amendment failed, and the new one bought 10 new airplanes at $2.1B, plus additional spares. That makes the costs for each airplane, plus the spares package with each one at $210M/

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive – the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft. Constant US government pressure reduced that price slightly but these numbers vary depending on what is being counted. DND originally estimated the cost of 6 C-17s at $1-to-$1.6B.[3] But the cost given for the new Airlift Capability Program-Strategic is $3.4B for only 4 C-17s (or US$762.5M each) due to a 20 year maintenance deal. Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.
http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm

-> $330M a ship

Which is it, $350M, $330M, or $241M per airplane? The USAF no longer buys the training package. They do all the initial qualification, requalification training, and instructor training at Altus AFB, OK. They have been doing the C-17 training there since 1995, Recurring training is done at all the C-17 operational squadrons. The original USAF maintenance package has expired, depot level maintenance is now done under a seperate Boeing maintenance contract in San Antonio, TX, or at the USAF Depot at Tinker AFB, OK. Spares are usually bought in annual budgets added to the current C-17 contract. They amount to approximately $8M per airplane, but are not added to the flyaway costs per airplane. There are seperate spares contractys that are now coming out, or will be out within the next few years. But, these are seperate from the purchase contracts. The ACPS program is the 12 C-17s I mentioned above.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency today notified Congress of a possible $2 billion sale of C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft and related equipment to Australia.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93258,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

-> $500M a ship

RAAF got 4 C-17s, a 30 year maintenance contract, training and continuing training (Boeing just delivered new C-17 simulators cockpit and cargo hold), as well as full spares and depot level maintenance (the first RAAF C-17 is scheduled into San Antonio next summer) for 30 years. Here is the news replease on the sims;

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=948

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/

The Canadian Forces maintnance and training support is for 30 years, not 20. Thay got essentially the same deal Austrailia got, with the first CF C-17 scheduled for san Antonio in 2011.

Had Austraila, or Canada, bought a like number of A-400Ms (actually each would need 8 A-400Ms to do the job of 4 C-17s), how much would those contracts cost, Keesje? Use the same 2005 and 2006 dates from the Boeing contracts, plus when would they get their airplanes?

Since the last USAF prices inflation has been high as you know. Recent orders, qoutes all point in a direction that is clear to (almost) everyone. Saying the price for the C-17 has tumbled in the last 8 yrs ago is a.. choice.

You are not "(almost) everyone". The prices for the C-17 have not incresased at the rate of the US inflation.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
If we converted the 1995 USAF price per C-17 ($172M US is equil to 104.92M Euros today), it compares directly to the 2005-2009 price of the A-400M (108M Euros for the basic version), without adjustments for inflation.

KC135Topboom, you blame for using 1-2 year old sources on A400M long term market forecasts. Now just look at what you are claiming. It's non-sense.

Pricing for the C-17 was originally established in the USAF LRIP contract in 1989. When, then, SOD Chaney cut the original planned buy of 240 C-17s to 120 the price per airplane skyrocketed. Cheney put a program termination in if the prices di not come down by half by airplane delivery #42. That is why MD adjuisted the price down to $172M per airplane beginning at airplane #41. That airplane was budgeted in 1995 and elevered in 1997. Also in 1997, Boeing took over MD, and the price was readjusted for inflation in 1999 to around $200M each. With additional costs cutting since then, the price has not had to keep up with the annual inflation factor (which between FY-2000 and FY-2010 has averaged 2% annually). That puts the current USAF flyaway price at just $202M and the international price at about $220M each. The international price is adjusted upward depending on the packages contracted for, and at what levels, and for how long.

The original RAF leased 4 airplanes would have costs the RAF some $155M per airplane for the 10 year lease, including maintenance and training, and spares. However, after about 2.5 years (3 RAF C-17s delivered and #4 was building) the RAF converted to the lease to a buy for these 4 airplanes. C-17 #4 was the first actually bought at a cost of $210M, not including the packages (which werew also bought). The lease payments already made on C-17s #1, #2, and #3 were converted to purchase payments, plus the final purchase payment,bring the toatl costs for each of these to about $250M, not including spares, maintnenace and training.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
US inflation has been around 3% for the last 15 yrs. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2008/images/0811.h2.jpg

Something that costed $268m in 2001 costs $350m in 2010 based on inflation alone in the US.

You are correct, the average inflation over the last 15 years (1994-2009) is 3%. But since 2000 it has averaged jhust 2%. The C-17 did not cost $268M each in 2000, it was $200M, see above, and costs $202M today (to the USAF), no spares, no other packages.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
I must say I'm getting a bit tired of stating & backing up endlessly what seems obvious to me. The C17 and A400M are not only in a different payload class, but also in a different price class..

Every news story about the A-400M pricing says it will go up by at least 25%, and maybe as high as 30% over the current contracted prices of 108M-115M Euros. The current US-Euro exchange rate is $1=1.39 Euros. Because the Euro is gaining value and the dollar is loosing value, is a major factor in pricing. Europe bought the A-400M in Euros, the two international orders (South Africa and Malayisa) were bought in US dollars, the C-17 is only sold in US dollars. The C-17 has/had 5 international orders, none cancelled. The A-400M has/had 2 international orders, one cancelled because of the rapidly increasing price. That was the only reason SAAF cancelled, it was not the delivery delays, although that may have been a minor factor.

You need to face reality, and not fantasy. The A-400M is Europe's version of the Hughes Spruce Goose, the H-4. It flew, but was dalyed and grossly over budget.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A342
Posted 2009-11-27 08:53:31 and read 32767 times.

The A400M might take to the skies in only two weeks:

"The goal would see the European airlifter's debut sortie take place from the A400M final assembly facility near Seville, Spain between 6 and 12 December, and be in line with an Airbus objective to fly the type before year-end."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-50-for-first-flight-of-a400m.html


Hope they can do it.

A342

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-27 09:25:40 and read 32767 times.

That would be great. The warm afterglow of a successful first sortie will hopefully help the contract negotiations along.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-27 10:33:37 and read 32767 times.



Quoting A342 (Reply 98):
The A400M might take to the skies in only two weeks:



Quoting A342 (Reply 98):
Hope they can do it.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
That would be great.

It would be nice if it happens. My hope and prayers are EADS is not rushing through the testing periods without enough time to review testing results. Of course they need to have good weather, even I will not fault them if they are ready to fly, buit are only getting bad weather in Seville.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
The warm afterglow of a successful first sortie will hopefully help the contract negotiations along.

I only get that after great sex, never after a first flight of any aircraft. But, things are different in Europe,

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-28 01:10:27 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I don't see it as the same thing. Europrop is building an upscaled engine bases on the M-88 core. The A-380 was something totally new for Airbus, as is the A-350 and B-787 for Boeing.

 rotfl 
And you don't see it as the same thing?
What happened to "The A380 is nothing except scaled up"?
 rotfl 
Got news for you. At the end of the day, the tings we get excited about on the A350 and 787 are different in nothing more than scale.
Don't EVER underestimate scale.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68):
To call the EPI partners "inexperienced" is nonsensical IMO

How would you discribe it? Immature, maybe?

How would YOU describe them? (note spelling..)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
Joint ventures. Each of the four companies are successful in their own rights. As far as I know, the only one of the four who has experience on a big successful JV is Snecma. They have a 50/50 share with GE on the very successful CFM-56 engine.

You also forgot IAE and the V2500 which flies by the thousand on A320's.
And we haven't even talked about the RB199 in the Tornado, or the EJ2000 in the Typhoon.....
And there's a number of others, like the RTM322

Quoting Keesje (Reply 77):
Topboom I thought you would have checked this before posting. I guess not. MTU would probably have had a share in the PW180 (and many other PW engines such as the GTF's.) ITP provides major components for e.g. the GE GENX and RR Trent 1000 & XWB turbofans..

Not to mention these........
No experience on big JV's  rotfl 

These A400M threads just get sillier.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
The warm afterglow of a successful first sortie will hopefully help the contract negotiations along.

Let's hope the 787 sees the same effect eh?

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-11-28 01:17:09 and read 32767 times.

Interesting article in DefenseNews about UK purchasing another C-17:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4394666&c=AME&s=TOP

Looks like they want the C-17 delivered quickly:

"If the department decides to purchase a new C-17, then we plan to be on contract with Boeing by the end of December 2009, with a view to delivery in December 2010 and an in-service date of March 2011," said the spokesman.

The rapid in-service date suggests the British will be given an early delivery slot earmarked for the U.S. Air Force."

Also says that UK might reduce its planned A400M order from 25 to 19 or less:

"French media earlier this month said Britain is expected to cut the number of aircraft it will buy from 25 to 19 aircraft in order to stay within funding availability. One British industry executive said earlier this week he thought the number the RAF get could be even less. "

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-28 05:55:33 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 101):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
The warm afterglow of a successful first sortie will hopefully help the contract negotiations along.

Let's hope the 787 sees the same effect eh?

Why? Boeing isn't refusing to honor the contracts it's signed, is it?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-28 06:06:41 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 102):
Interesting article in DefenseNews about UK purchasing another C-17:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...s=TOP

The lead paragraph was interesting:

Quote:
Britain is negotiating the purchase of another Boeing C-17 airlifter to boost the Royal Air Force's ability to supply troops fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. I

Those who keep saying C-17 is not used in Afghanistan can shut up now.

Quote:
"A400M is the replacement capability for the Hercules C-130K tactical transporter. We have looked carefully at the intra-theater operational requirement after the C130-K goes out of service in 2012. Although a C-17 can be employed in a tactical role and will help to mitigate against operational losses of C-130J, analysis suggests that the current fleet of 24 C-130J can sustain anticipated intra-theatre airlift tasking on current operations until A400M comes into service."

Not the warmest endorsement of the A400M, is it?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-28 06:12:53 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 101):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I don't see it as the same thing. Europrop is building an upscaled engine bases on the M-88 core. The A-380 was something totally new for Airbus, as is the A-350 and B-787 for Boeing.


And you don't see it as the same thing?
What happened to "The A380 is nothing except scaled up"?

Got news for you. At the end of the day, the tings we get excited about on the A350 and 787 are different in nothing more than scale.
Don't EVER underestimate scale.

Do you want me to say the A-380 is nothing more than an A-330-200 put atop an A-340-500?

Both the B-787 and A-350 programs are very different from "traditional" aircraft in design, construction material, and manufacturing techniques.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 101):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68):
To call the EPI partners "inexperienced" is nonsensical IMO

How would you discribe it? Immature, maybe?

How would YOU describe them? (note spelling..)

Inexperienced.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 102):
Interesting article in DefenseNews about UK purchasing another C-17:

Great news for the C-17 program. I always thought the RAF would need at least 10 C-17s, this one would be #7. They (internal RAF) are talking about a possible #8 C-17, too.

If the RAF reduces their A-400M order by 25% (from 25 aircraft order to 19), and other EU Air Forces also reduce their orders by 20%-25%, will the A-400M program survive? Currently there are 184 A-400Ms on order, a 25% reduction would cancel 46 aircraft, down to a firm order of just 138 aircraft.

Does anyone think a possible SAAF order for up to 6-8 C-17s (or 8-14 C-130J-30s) could happen within the next year, replacing their now cancelled A-400M order?

[Edited 2009-11-28 06:14:39]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: CheetahC
Posted 2009-11-28 06:38:18 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 105):
Does anyone think a possible SAAF order for up to 6-8 C-17s (or 8-14 C-130J-30s) could happen within the next year, replacing their now cancelled A-400M order?

C-130Js are very possible, almost no chance for the C-17 though.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-28 07:05:36 and read 32767 times.



Quoting CheetahC (Reply 106):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 105):
Does anyone think a possible SAAF order for up to 6-8 C-17s (or 8-14 C-130J-30s) could happen within the next year, replacing their now cancelled A-400M order?

C-130Js are very possible, almost no chance for the C-17 though.

Thank you. I asked about the C-17 because there would be a good possibility of bumping into a few USAF production slots to get a few C-17s early (within the next two years, if the SAAF accepts the USAF stabdard C-17). The C-130Js, or C-130J-30s would take over 3 years before the first one could be delivered.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-28 15:25:41 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 105):
Both the B-787 and A-350 programs are very different from "traditional" aircraft in design, construction material, and manufacturing techniques.

They have a slightly different fuselage skin construction and that's it.
The other 95% is pretty much exactly what we've seen before.....
The hype around product differntiation on this forum becomes more infantile by the day.......

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 105):
Inexperienced.

You tell me then, who's MORE expewrienced than RR, MTU, Snecma, and ITP......
While you're thinking, I'm off to bed....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
Why? Boeing isn't refusing to honor the contracts it's signed, is it?

Dunno. Isn't it?

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-28 16:24:34 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
They have a slightly different fuselage skin construction and that's it.
The other 95% is pretty much exactly what we've seen before.....
The hype around product differntiation on this forum becomes more infantile by the day.......

And IMHO your insistence that 95% is "pretty much exactly what we've seen before" is contrarian nonsense, but let's not stray too away from the A400M, shall we?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
Why? Boeing isn't refusing to honor the contracts it's signed, is it?

Dunno. Isn't it?

My understanding is that Boeing is standing by its 787 contracts (including penalty payments) whereas Airbus is not standing by its A400M contracts (especially the penalty payments).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-11-29 01:17:02 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 109):
And IMHO your insistence that 95% is "pretty much exactly what we've seen before" is contrarian nonsense

It's no more contrarian nonsense than when it is applied to many other aircraft, INCLUDING the A400M.
So you're right to suggest you don't go there.....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 109):
My understanding is that Boeing is standing by its 787 contracts (including penalty payments) whereas Airbus is not standing by its A400M contracts (especially the penalty payments).

Who cares about the 787?
You think I'll be unable to find an instance where a Boeing mlitary aircraft development programme has overrun to a degree that has required the customer to cut back on initial acquisition?

I suspect it wouldn't be too good an idea to go there either.

When you're so keen to dig the sh*t on the A400M, along with the rest of your gang, don't expect a free ride, my friend  no 

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EPA001
Posted 2009-11-29 02:03:23 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
When you're so keen to dig the sh*t on the A400M, along with the rest of your gang, don't expect a free ride, my friend

Well said. But it also very sad that both the KC-X thread and the A400 thread are so full sh*t by this "gang". I have a strong feeling that if no European, or other major foreign company for that matter, was involved, we would not have this discussion at all, or maybe only at 10% of its current sad level. Maybe (probably) the Xenophobic members feel the threat of the competition, which they did not have previously. It must be getting them nervous knowing there are better products out there, or products covering a new market (between the C17 and the C130). Obviously that should not be since it is not US build.  scratchchin   scratchchin   scratchchin  We have seen the same reactions and behaviour before, for example when the A380 was severely bashed just because it was going to be out there.  Sad How wrong all these reactions were we know now, and we will also know that about the A400M and the KC-X when they are in operational service.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-11-29 02:53:53 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 109):
My understanding is that Boeing is standing by its 787 contracts (including penalty payments) whereas Airbus is not standing by its A400M contracts (especially the penalty payments).

I thought penalty payments were normally only due after a project becomes late.

No question that the A400M will be late when they are delivered, but it is a bit of a jump to suggest that it technically already is, some customers are not due for their aircraft for another 6 years.

AFAIK France is the first customer, and contractual delivery was for this quarter.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
You think I'll be unable to find an instance where a Boeing mlitary aircraft development programme has overrun to a degree that has required the customer to cut back on initial acquisition?

You mean like JP129 TUAV contract ? That got canceled all together like the A-12 Avenger II (but that one the got when they acquired McDonnell Douglas)

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-11-29 04:26:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
You think I'll be unable to find an instance where a Boeing mlitary aircraft development programme has overrun to a degree that has required the customer to cut back on initial acquisition?

And when you do, you should start a thread about it. Here we (were) discussing how the A400M's first flight might help the currently ongoing contract negotiations proceed. Why such a topic makes you so cross is beyond me.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112):
I thought penalty payments were normally only due after a project becomes late.

No question that the A400M will be late when they are delivered, but it is a bit of a jump to suggest that it technically already is, some customers are not due for their aircraft for another 6 years.

Technically, indeed. It's not late till it's late. However, all options are open to discussion. Both Enders and Gallois brought forth the specter of cancelling A400M too. While we all don't see that happening, you never know. SA has pulled out, and there are rumours of the UK cutting back their purchase. So let's see how this one goes, shall we?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-11-29 05:31:01 and read 32767 times.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 111):
Maybe (probably) the Xenophobic members feel the threat of the competition, which they did not have previously

Does compettion mean EU jobs in the US purchasing US equipment, or vice versa, or EU jobs in the EU and their products shipped to the US, or EU loss of tax base by purchasing US equipment or vice versa, or the US battling to maintain their ability to produce a/c over loosing an entire industry and technology and becoming a consumer nation?

This is an aviation site, and even though most here claim to be fans we sometimes make little or no effort to be objective when our "national" pride is at stake. Whether the A380, 787 or A400M no one is claiming that the employees from one company are building the a/c for the other company, so if the 787 is delayed how is that the fault of the A380, what does the size of the roads in France have to do with incorrect fastners? Maybe if a duplicate thread is started on OEM management in the non-aviation forum for each thread started here all would be able to vent there and leave this thread to discuss the actual a/c and its problems, obviously context is getting lost in the "translation".

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-29 07:43:17 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 105):
Both the B-787 and A-350 programs are very different from "traditional" aircraft in design, construction material, and manufacturing techniques.

They have a slightly different fuselage skin construction and that's it.
The other 95% is pretty much exactly what we've seen before.....
The hype around product differntiation on this forum becomes more infantile by the day.......

Some how, I view carbon fiber material much more than "slightly different" than Aluminum. Is the other 95% the same? What other airplane is purely electric, including the wing deicing systems? What other airplane is "bleedless"?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 105):
Inexperienced.

You tell me then, who's MORE expewrienced than RR, MTU, Snecma, and ITP......
While you're thinking, I'm off to bed....

Each of those companies individually are more experienced in engine technology, as well as P&W and GE.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 103):
Why? Boeing isn't refusing to honor the contracts it's signed, is it?

Dunno. Isn't it?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 109):
My understanding is that Boeing is standing by its 787 contracts (including penalty payments) whereas Airbus is not standing by its A400M contracts (especially the penalty payments).

Correct

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
Who cares about the 787?
You think I'll be unable to find an instance where a Boeing mlitary aircraft development programme has overrun to a degree that has required the customer to cut back on initial acquisition?

I suspect it wouldn't be too good an idea to go there either.

When you're so keen to dig the sh*t on the A400M, along with the rest of your gang, don't expect a free ride, my friend

You will find them, and not only from Boeing, but from all US OEMs that build military equipment. More than often you will find the program cancelled, or cut back, because of costs overruns than on technicial issues. The MD C-17 project was originally cut from a 240 airplane buy to just 120, and a possible cancel if MD didn't get increasing costs under control (by then SOD Dick Cheney) by airplane delivery #42. MD did control costs and a huge price per unit decrease at delivery of airplane #41. Boeing later bought/merged with MD and got the C-17 program back on track and under budget. So far, the USAF has received more than 213 airplanes, with at least 12 more scheduled for delivery. We may, or may, not get back to the original USAF buy of 240 C-17s.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 111):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
When you're so keen to dig the sh*t on the A400M, along with the rest of your gang, don't expect a free ride, my friend

Well said. But it also very sad that both the KC-X thread and the A400 thread are so full sh*t by this "gang". I have a strong feeling that if no European, or other major foreign company for that matter, was involved, we would not have this discussion at all, or maybe only at 10% of its current sad level. Maybe (probably) the Xenophobic members feel the threat of the competition, which they did not have previously. It must be getting them nervous knowing there are better products out there, or products covering a new market (between the C17 and the C130). Obviously that should not be since it is not US build. We have seen the same reactions and behaviour before, for example when the A380 was severely bashed just because it was going to be out there. How wrong all these reactions were we know now, and we will also know that about the A400M and the KC-X when they are in operational service.

No, the difference is if the A-400M had been a USAF project, from Europe or the US, it would have been long ago cancelled due to bad management and the costs overruns, as well as the continous delays.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 109):
My understanding is that Boeing is standing by its 787 contracts (including penalty payments) whereas Airbus is not standing by its A400M contracts (especially the penalty payments).

I thought penalty payments were normally only due after a project becomes late.

No question that the A400M will be late when they are delivered, but it is a bit of a jump to suggest that it technically already is, some customers are not due for their aircraft for another 6 years.

AFAIK France is the first customer, and contractual delivery was for this quarter.

Delivery is only one "milestone" a new airplane program must meet. There are other huge "milestones" that must meet contract deadlines, including first flight, flight and ground tests deadlines, LRIP, and FRP, as well as final delivery. At least that is the normal contract that is written for the US Government. How the EU does it, I don't really know, but the way the various government officials are talking, it sounds like Europe has similar "milestaones" that must be met by contract. These "milestones" are how the progress of the program are graded, and how we know the B-787 is 2 years late, the A-380 was (is still?) 2+ years late, and the A-400M is 3+ years late.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 112):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
You think I'll be unable to find an instance where a Boeing mlitary aircraft development programme has overrun to a degree that has required the customer to cut back on initial acquisition?

You mean like JP129 TUAV contract ? That got canceled all together like the A-12 Avenger II (but that one the got when they acquired McDonnell Douglas)

Boeing has several that were canceled/cutback due to costs overruns. they also have many cases where the government contracted for XX number of airplanes, only to cancel the contract due to other budget reasons. For example, the KC-135 had 87 airplanes canceled due to government budgets between initial production in 1955 and final production in 1964, the B-52 had some 66 airplanes cancelled for the same reason during its production. GD originally held a USAF/SAC contract to build 270 FB-111s, from 1967 to 1977, but that was trimmed down to just the 72 airplanes actually built between 1967 and 1969.

The A-400M is currently scheduled for it first flight in week 50 of 2009, that is the week of 7 December. I hope it really does fly on time. I will not critisize it for not flying because the weather is not "clear and a million" (VFR), which is needed. A week or two of bad weather in Seville is not a delay for the airplane itself. However, if the weather is bad, but they find some technicial problem that would have prevented a safe and good first flight, that is a delay I would critisize. The same goes for the B-787, currently scheduled for FF on or around 22 December, weather permitting.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A342
Posted 2009-11-29 10:04:07 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 115):
What other airplane is "bleedless"?

Every single piston airliner is! Simple as that. The technology is VERY old.


A342

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-29 11:55:05 and read 32767 times.



Quoting A342 (Reply 116):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 115):
What other airplane is "bleedless"?

Every single piston airliner is! Simple as that. The technology is VERY old.

Is it?

You are sure about it being "VERY old technology"?

Name a commerical jet airliner that is not using bleed air for pressurization, engine start, etc. Come on now, we can go back to the B-707, or how about Comet Mk-1?

How many piston engine pressurized airliners don't use some form of bleed air (back then it was usually a seperate turbo-booster run by the exhaust manifolds, and /or electric air compressors, that pressurized the cabin air. How about going back to the Boeing B-307 (do you know what that is?), B-29, the Lockheed XC-35, or the Avro Tudor (do you know any of them?), how about the very first pressurized aircraft, a German airplane, maybe you have heard of it, the Junkers JU-49?

BTW, the A-400M is not Bleedless, nor is the A-350.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EPA001
Posted 2009-11-29 12:45:06 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
BTW, the A-400M is not Bleedless, nor is the A-350.

And they are like that by choice. Airbus has been very clear about that.  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A342
Posted 2009-11-29 12:50:22 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
You are sure about it being "VERY old technology"?

Yes, absolutely.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
Come on now, we can go back to the B-707, or how about Comet Mk-1?

Sure we can, why not?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
How many piston engine pressurized airliners don't use some form of bleed air (back then it was usually a seperate turbo-booster run by the exhaust manifolds, and /or electric air compressors, that pressurized the cabin air.

Huh? Now what else should there be? Why do you lump bleed air and electric compressors together? The 787 DOES use electric compressors, which are indeed a very old technology.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
. How about going back to the Boeing B-307 (do you know what that is?), B-29, the Lockheed XC-35, or the Avro Tudor (do you know any of them?), how about the very first pressurized aircraft, a German airplane, maybe you have heard of it, the Junkers JU-49?

Thanks for your ignorance, I absolutely know them.  Yeah sure

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
BTW, the A-400M is not Bleedless, nor is the A-350.

So what? Neither is the MRJ, C-Series or A380.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-11-30 00:25:02 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
BTW, the A-400M is not Bleedless, nor is the A-350.

 shhh  the 787 aint bleedless either & the jury is still out on bleedless, let's wait how operations go.. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...rticles/qtr_4_07/article_02_2.html

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Slz396
Posted 2009-11-30 01:03:40 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 117):
Name a commerical jet airliner that is not using bleed air for engine start.

The BAe146 (or Avro RJ70/85/100 as it is called in later versions) uses solely an electrical starter motor to starts its 4 high bypass jet engines....

The starter motor is DC powered even and guess what, it can even start its engines from its BATTS in some conditions!

Talking about a self-supportive, totally bleedless architecture.... 30 years old!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: R2rho
Posted 2009-11-30 04:00:33 and read 32767 times.

Hmmm I came in here looking for a thread about A400M First Flight & Future Prospects, but I guess I was wrong.....  sarcastic 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-11-30 05:56:42 and read 32767 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 122):
Hmmm I came in here looking for a thread about A400M First Flight & Future Prospects, but I guess I was wrong.....

I agree, we need to get back on topic or the mods will lock it.

Any word on whae the A-400M will complete its ground pressuization testing? As I understand it, it has yet to be pressurized for the first time.

I would think they would want to do the pressure tests before the announced FF, on or about 7 December.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Scbriml
Posted 2009-11-30 09:29:09 and read 32767 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 122):
Hmmm I came in here looking for a thread about A400M First Flight & Future Prospects, but I guess I was wrong.....

Not completely.

First flight is set for week of 7th December! Who'd a thunk it?  smile 
http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSGEE5AQ1LI20091127

Quote:
The aircraft is expected to take to the air in the week beginning Dec. 7, the head of the Airbus unit, Domingo Urena, said in a letter dated Friday emailed to Reuters.

"The ground tests of the first A400M are progressing satisfactorily at our facility. This allows us to anticipate a first flight in the week 50, weather permitting," Urena said.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-11-30 15:49:46 and read 32767 times.

Les Echos is reporting that the A400M will cost the airbus countries (and the others) that ordered this thing "40% more". Let's hear again from the "the C-17 is too expensive" crowd.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSGEE5AT2M620091130

Quote:
PARIS, Nov 30 (Reuters) - The Airbus A400M will cost the seven countries buying the military transport an additional 7.4 billion euros for the 180 aircraft on order, Les Echos newspaper reported in a preview of the front page of its Tuesday edition.

This would be an increase of 40 percent, the paper said.

Airbus Military, which makes the plane, referred calls to parent company EADS (EAD.PA), where no one was immediately reached for comment.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Slz396
Posted 2009-12-01 01:47:11 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 125):
Let's hear again from the "the C-17 is too expensive" crowd.

The C-17 would still be too expensive:

- in purchase

- in operation

On top of that it would also not generate any return on government investment for the participating countries during the time of design and production, since that is already well past us.

And on top of that the C-17 is not in the class of plane we're looking for, so I really wonder why you keep pushing this option?

If you're SUV brakes down and you need to look for another one to replace it, do you buy a Hummer, just because the used cars salesman makes you a good offer for one?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-01 02:51:38 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 126):
The C-17 would still be too expensive:

[quote=Slz396,reply=126]The C-17 would still be too expensive:

- in purchase

 no  Don't think so. Remember this? This is the last data point I have on the C-17 pricing.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0on%20C-17%20Sales&channel=defense

Quote:
International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

Earlier this year the French Senate noted that the A400M cost had risen from 145 million euros. That was then. (at USD$1.50 to the euro that's USD$218 million per A400M!)

Given what we are reading in the media, it is virtually certain that unit costs will rise. There is a good chance this aircraft could cost more than the more capable C-17.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 126):
- in operation

Unless there's an A400M operating somewhere, I have no idea how you can state this with such certainty.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 126):
On top of that it would also not generate any return on government investment for the participating countries during the time of design and production, since that is already well past us.

On this we agree.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-01 03:24:46 and read 32767 times.

From SeattlePI.

According to the Selected Acquisition Reports published by the US Department of Defense, the cost per C-17 airframe is 280 million and increasing.

South Africa purchased 8 A400Ms for €837 million including spares, training, support etc, that is about €105 milion per airframe, 40% more would be €146 million.

€146 million today with the depressed USD is USD$220 million, 3/4 the cost of a C-17. The C-17 costs USD$18,000 per hours to run, over double of what it costs to run 4 turboprobs.

The C-17 is not the same price to purchase or to operate.


I think Boeing and its supporters are desperately trying to keep the Long Beech C-17 open, understandably. The prices offered at this moment to propspects have little to do with representative sales values we have seen in recent yrs.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: R2rho
Posted 2009-12-01 04:38:31 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 123):
I would think they would want to do the pressure tests before the announced FF, on or about 7 December.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 124):
Not completely.

First flight is set for week of 7th December! Who'd a thunk it? smile
http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDE...91127

Thanks  Smile

My personal bet is on december 10th. Why? Because it is the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, patroness of Spanish aviation. It is quite celebrated in the Spanish aviation community, and particularly the Spanish AF. The timing would be perfect.

P.S. Once first flight occurs, it might actually be worth starting a new thread from scratch to follow up the campaign

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-01 05:14:59 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 126):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 125):
Let's hear again from the "the C-17 is too expensive" crowd.

The C-17 would still be too expensive:

- in purchase

- in operation

Oh really? The C-17 is far cheaper in price now. How many A-400Ms are in operation? None, so how do you know it is cheaper to operate? You seem to forget that since the C-17 is almost double the capability of the A-400M, you would not need to buy it on a 1:1 replacement ratio. The 180 A-400Ms the EU has on order can be replaced by about 90-100 C-17s, reducing crews, fuel, maintenance, spares, training, and other costs.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 126):
On top of that it would also not generate any return on government investment for the participating countries during the time of design and production, since that is already well past us.

How much more good money will throw after bad money? At what point has the costs overruns become so painful the progarm has to be cancelled?

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 126):
And on top of that the C-17 is not in the class of plane we're looking for, so I really wonder why you keep pushing this option?



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 127):
Earlier this year the French Senate noted that the A400M cost had risen from 145 million euros. That was then. (at USD$1.50 to the euro that's USD$218 million per A400M!)

Given what we are reading in the media, it is virtually certain that unit costs will rise. There is a good chance this aircraft could cost more than the more capable C-17.

The costs are already higher than the more capable C-17, even the French agree with that.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 128):
From SeattlePI.

According to the Selected Acquisition Reports published by the US Department of Defense, the cost per C-17 airframe is 280 million and increasing.

South Africa purchased 8 A400Ms for %u20AC837 million including spares, training, support etc, that is about %u20AC105 milion per airframe, 40% more would be %u20AC146 million.

%u20AC146 million today with the depressed USD is USD$220 million, 3/4 the cost of a C-17. The C-17 costs USD$18,000 per hours to run, over double of what it costs to run 4 turboprobs.

The C-17 is not the same price to purchase or to operate.

Do you have the link? What is the date, as you always like to put in links that are 2-15 years old. The USAF and US Congress say the flyaway price per C-17 is $202M, Boeing says the international costs are $220M, not including packages. The USAF says the cost to run the C-17 per hour is $11,250, about what it thinks the A-400M will cost per hour.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-01 05:22:34 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 128):
South Africa purchased 8 A400Ms for €837 million including spares, training, support etc, that is about €105 milion per airframe, 40% more would be €146 million.

You aren't even close:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

And I give two excellent linked sources (BBC, FT) quoting government representatives instead of some unlinked reference to some think tank style report.

Clearly, SA left the program due to rising costs or as you say, financial risk.

If the planes were "only" 105M EUR I doubt they would have left.

On the other hand, if the word was that there'd be a 40% price increase coming just on the airframes themselves, I could certainly see why SA left the program.

I'm afraid the A400M is going to be a very expensive airframe, and by the time it comes into service, may have missed the mark in terms of required payload/range. Also it's a very poor time to try to get a large cost increase into budgets. I really do have to wonder how far the whole program is from unraveling.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-01 05:34:30 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 131):
I'm afraid the A400M is going to be a very expensive airframe, and by the time it comes into service, may have missed the mark in terms of required payload/range. Also it's a very poor time to try to get a large cost increase into budgets. I really do have to wonder how far the whole program is from unraveling.

Had the USAF been a customer of the A-400M, the Nunn-Lugar Act would have kicked in by now and forced the US to cancel and withdraw from the program.

Does anyone know if the prototype A-400M has DFDRs and DCVRs installed, along with the test equipment?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-01 06:09:30 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
Do you have the link? What is the date, as you always like to put in links that are 2-15 years old. The USAF and US Congress say the flyaway price per C-17 is $202M, Boeing says the international costs are $220M, not including packages. The USAF says the cost to run the C-17 per hour is $11,250, about what it thinks the A-400M will cost per hour.

Of course there is a link. But I won't post it anymore. There is absolutely nothing that change your mind on the C-17 numbers you stick to, despite a string of information / sources that prove otherwise. You'll simply deny them again so I'll pass from now on  Wink

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
Had the USAF been a customer of the A-400M, the Nunn-Lugar Act would have kicked in by now and forced the US to cancel and withdraw from the program.

Keeping Up Appearances. It didn't kick in with the Apache, Future Combat Systems (FCS), Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and various space systems (All >50% over budget). The C-130-J also took 30% extra. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pol...022609_fy10_topline_weapons_costs/

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-01 06:35:43 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 133):
Of course there is a link. But I won't post it anymore.

And so what ever little credibility you have on these price issues has just disappeared.

You keep giving quotes from SA sources about the low cost of the A400M, but you seem to not have noticed that SA has recently withdrawn from the program due to "extensive cost escalation"

Ref: http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2009/09110511251001.htm

Clearly EADS is not going to sell the planes at the numbers you've found from various stale sources, so it's absurd to keep bringing it back up time and time again!

It's so ironic that you accuse others of selective utilization of the facts, when you do it all the time.

Notice I didn't mention any other aircraft in this posting. It's not necessary, the news is showing that A400M is pricing itself at a huge premium to what it can deliver.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Slz396
Posted 2009-12-01 07:35:32 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
How many A-400Ms are in operation? None, so how do you know it is cheaper to operate?



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 127):
Unless there's an A400M operating somewhere, I have no idea how you can state this with such certainty.

Sure, there's no A400M operating yet, but take an educated guess as to which one is cheeper to operate... a turboprop, or a jet with about double the payload capacity?

Is an ATR72 cheaper to run than a 737?

It's about the same comparison really....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
You seem to forget that since the C-17 is almost double the capability of the A-400M, you would not need to buy it on a 1:1 replacement ratio

Since most of the missions the A400M is going to be used on aren't permanent mass transportation air bridges like the USAF is running, but rather kind of 'ad hoc' type of operations with only modest payloads, the higher capacity of anything larger than the A400M is not going to be of much use....

The rare occasions where a single C17 would indeed be able to take the load of 2 A400Ms, would largerly be offset by the numerous cases where a not even a half empty C17 is being flown on a mission the A400M will be ideal for.

Remember that the A400M is SIZED to customer specifications, so anything with a higher payload is per definition less suited for the mission profile the EU governments have in mind.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-01 08:09:30 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
You keep giving quotes from SA sources about the low cost of the A400M,

? me ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
but you seem to not have noticed that SA has recently withdrawn from the program due to "extensive cost escalation"

? I even said it was a logical decision.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
so it's absurd to keep bringing it back up time and time again!

? me ?

Do you even check when you accuse people ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
It's not necessary, the news is showing that A400M is pricing itself at a huge premium to what it can deliver.

If europe wants to buy equal capasity of large cargo, trans atlantic range, speed, unprepared airfields, jet & helicopter refuelling capasity and terrain following freighter capability, certified both civil and militairy I wonder what cheaper option you have in mind..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 133):
Of course there is a link. But I won't post it anymore.

And so what ever little credibility you have on these price issues has just disappeared.

 yawn  reply 94  yawn 

The price for the firt 190 C-17 no stand at ~328 million / ship. (keep in mind recent $ inflation..)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../news/2008/08/mil-080818-dod02.htm  yawn 

If the price increase for the A400M would indeed be the (unconfirmed) E7.4 Billion that would come down to ~E155 million / ship. Translating that to todays low dollar values creates a high dollar price. But its a mainly Euro supply chain. maybe a few more A400Ms will be sold in the next 20 yrs..

dang.. I'm trying to convince the unconvincibles again..  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-01 08:39:07 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 136):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
You keep giving quotes from SA sources about the low cost of the A400M,

? me ?

Yes, you, right here, less than five hours ago:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 128):
South Africa purchased 8 A400Ms for €837 million including spares, training, support etc, that is about €105 milion per airframe, 40% more would be €146 million.

You do recall doing this, don't you?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-01 08:51:23 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 136):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
It's not necessary, the news is showing that A400M is pricing itself at a huge premium to what it can deliver.

If europe wants to buy equal capasity of large cargo, trans atlantic range, speed, unprepared airfields, jet & helicopter refuelling capasity and terrain following freighter capability, certified both civil and militairy I wonder what cheaper option you have in mind..

Right now the A400M doesn't do all those things and it's not clear that there's a fundable plan that would get it to do all those things. We now hear the eventual outcome of the current negotiations will be a set of "tranches" with various features delivered over time, but if the past track record is true, all this will do is make it possible for some to opt out of some of the bells and whistles making it even more expensive to get to the A400M that you are presuming may some day appear.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 136):
The price for the first 190 C-17 no stand at ~328 million / ship. (keep in mind recent $ inflation..)

And the reality of what this number means has been explained to you time and time again. Hopefully you can finally internalize the following:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
Pricing for the C-17 was originally established in the USAF LRIP contract in 1989. When, then, SOD Chaney cut the original planned buy of 240 C-17s to 120 the price per airplane skyrocketed. Cheney put a program termination in if the prices di not come down by half by airplane delivery #42. That is why MD adjuisted the price down to $172M per airplane beginning at airplane #41. That airplane was budgeted in 1995 and elevered in 1997. Also in 1997, Boeing took over MD, and the price was readjusted for inflation in 1999 to around $200M each. With additional costs cutting since then, the price has not had to keep up with the annual inflation factor (which between FY-2000 and FY-2010 has averaged 2% annually). That puts the current USAF flyaway price at just $202M and the international price at about $220M each. The international price is adjusted upward depending on the packages contracted for, and at what levels, and for how long.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-01 12:33:39 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 133):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
Do you have the link? What is the date, as you always like to put in links that are 2-15 years old. The USAF and US Congress say the flyaway price per C-17 is $202M, Boeing says the international costs are $220M, not including packages. The USAF says the cost to run the C-17 per hour is $11,250, about what it thinks the A-400M will cost per hour.

Of course there is a link. But I won't post it anymore. There is absolutely nothing that change your mind on the C-17 numbers you stick to, despite a string of information / sources that prove otherwise. You'll simply deny them again so I'll pass from now on

So you don't have a link. You are still in denial, my friend. The C-17 prices are what they are, and no matter how much wishfull thinking you do will not change it. You are still in denial about the A-400M prices, too.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 133):
Keeping Up Appearances. It didn't kick in with the Apache, Future Combat Systems (FCS), Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and various space systems (All >50% over budget). The C-130-J also took 30% extra. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pol...osts/

Maybe you should look at the Nunn-Lugar law and see what it does, when, and what others need to do to save a program that has excessive costs overruns.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 135):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
How many A-400Ms are in operation? None, so how do you know it is cheaper to operate?



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 127):
Unless there's an A400M operating somewhere, I have no idea how you can state this with such certainty.

Sure, there's no A400M operating yet, but take an educated guess as to which one is cheeper to operate... a turboprop, or a jet with about double the payload capacity?

Is an ATR72 cheaper to run than a 737?

It's about the same comparison really....

What educated guess? BTW the B-737-700, for example burns about 50% more than an ATR-72 does, but carries twice the pax and cargo load.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 135):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
You seem to forget that since the C-17 is almost double the capability of the A-400M, you would not need to buy it on a 1:1 replacement ratio

Since most of the missions the A400M is going to be used on aren't permanent mass transportation air bridges like the USAF is running, but rather kind of 'ad hoc' type of operations with only modest payloads, the higher capacity of anything larger than the A400M is not going to be of much use....

The rare occasions where a single C17 would indeed be able to take the load of 2 A400Ms, would largerly be offset by the numerous cases where a not even a half empty C17 is being flown on a mission the A400M will be ideal for.



C-17s leaving the US are generally full, either by cubes or weight. You will find less than full C-17s returning from the thearters, as well as within the thearters, as does the C-130Js there. Just like the A-400Ms will do.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 135):
Remember that the A400M is SIZED to customer specifications, so anything with a higher payload is per definition less suited for the mission profile the EU governments have in mind.

No it was not. The customers did not SIZE anything. Airbus began the A-400M program around 1990, and drew up the size and capability throughout the 1990s. The EU countries wrote their RFPs to fit the A-400M, it was not the other way around.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 136):
If europe wants to buy equal capasity of large cargo, trans atlantic range, speed, unprepared airfields, jet & helicopter refuelling capasity and terrain following freighter capability, certified both civil and militairy I wonder what cheaper option you have in mind..

C-17s (accept for the refueling stuff), which the A-400M has not done, either..

Quoting Keesje (Reply 136):
If the price increase for the A400M would indeed be the (unconfirmed) E7.4 Billion that would come down to ~E155 million / ship. Translating that to todays low dollar values creates a high dollar price. But its a mainly Euro supply chain. maybe a few more A400Ms will be sold in the next 20 yrs..

At that price, I doubt we will see any more sales of the A-400M, even to EU customers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 136):
The price for the firt 190 C-17 no stand at ~328 million / ship. (keep in mind recent $ inflation..)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../news/2008/08/mil-080818-dod02.htm

Where in that link does it say anything about the C-17, at all? It is not there, the price is not there.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-01 13:35:39 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 135):
Is an ATR72 cheaper to run than a 737?

It's about the same comparison really....

If you need two ATRs to haul all your stuff, or if you need to make extra fuel stops to get to where you are going, the ATR is not going to be effective, and the huge number of 737s show the value of the jet transport. Turboprops have issues with the airflow beating against the fuse and the wings that jet transports do not have.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 135):
Since most of the missions the A400M is going to be used on aren't permanent mass transportation air bridges like the USAF is running, but rather kind of 'ad hoc' type of operations with only modest payloads, the higher capacity of anything larger than the A400M is not going to be of much use....

How do you know? Germany and UK are both participating in Afghanistan so that usage is very similar to the USAF's usage.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 135):
Remember that the A400M is SIZED to customer specifications, so anything with a higher payload is per definition less suited for the mission profile the EU governments have in mind.

The original purchase agreements were signed in May 2003. One wonders if the specifications would be the same if they were able to rewrite them now.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-01 15:38:56 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 133):
Of course there is a link. But I won't post it anymore.

Keesje, don't pass on this heaven sent opportunity; post the link and dispel the doubts.

BTW, are you following this? There was a Reuters story (quoting a German media source) today that said EADS is considering dropping the A400M. Very quickly, an EADS spokesperson denied the report. This thing is getting very, very ugly.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idCNGEE5B01Z120091201?rpc=44

Quote:
FRANKFURT/PARIS, Dec 1 (Reuters) - European aerospace group EADS (EAD.PA) denied a media report that it was considering dropping the Airbus A400M military transport project over expected cost overruns.

Germany's Focus Online website reported on Tuesday without citing any sources that EADS could bury Europe's biggest-ever defence contract even before the aircraft takes its first flight, planned for next week.

It said auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers had concluded that developing the aircraft would cost 5.3 billion euros ($7.98 billion) more than originally planned.

The 20 billion-euro A400M programme is already delayed by three to four years, and Airbus is pressing for concessions on the terms of the contract, saying it faces unaffordable losses in delivering the 180 aircraft ordered by seven NATO countries.

"Negotiations are ongoing. Everything else is speculation," an EADS spokesman said on Tuesday.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-01 16:04:25 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 141):
There was a Reuters story (quoting a German media source) today that said EADS is considering dropping the A400M. Very quickly, an EADS spokesperson denied the report. This thing is getting very, very ugly.

I'm not all that surprised:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 131):
I'm afraid the A400M is going to be a very expensive airframe, and by the time it comes into service, may have missed the mark in terms of required payload/range. Also it's a very poor time to try to get a large cost increase into budgets. I really do have to wonder how far the whole program is from unraveling.

I am not saying the program is unravelling, but I really do have to wonder how far the whole program is from unravelling. SA gone, UK lining up to get another C-17 and rumours of them cutting back their purchase of A400M from 25 to 19 (see reply 102 above), and now rumours of EADS itself wondering if they should pull out, all very ugly indeed!

I guess the meetings in Berlin didn't go very well after all?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-01 16:13:06 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 142):
I am not saying the program is unravelling, but I really do have to wonder how far the whole program is from unravelling.

I don't think it will ever "unravel" in the sense that the airbus nations will dump it. I have opined previously (several times, in fact) that the next ice age will occur before they cancel this program. Nothing I've read in the media has changed my mind; this is the way of industrial policy and in this case I agree with them. However, the costs are escalating to the point that it will be a very, very expensive policy when its all said and done. Of course, EADS can take "charges" to the program and with creative accounting it won't look that bad.

Count me on the side of airbus on this one. If the governments want it bad enough, they'll pony up the cash. The alternative is too dire to contemplate. Actually, I don't even believe that an "alternative"is even being considered. After the media shadow boxing is concluded, the airbus governments will cave; the program will go on.

After all, they will have the cover of the first flight in a couple of weeks.

[Edited 2009-12-01 16:15:22]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-01 16:35:13 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
So you don't have a link. You are still in denial, my friend. The C-17 prices are what they are,



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 141):
Keesje, don't pass on this heaven sent opportunity; post the link and dispel the doubts.

Why should I ? As I stated it's useless. No source stating what you folks don't want to hear will ever get accepted. Welll ok then here we go again, page 18:

Average Procurement Unit Cost: $280 Million, Ref. Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Department of Defense OUSD (AT&L). Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR). C-17A, C-5AMP, C-5RERP.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...79125&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

The only curiosity I have is to see how this x'th prove will be bypassed.

Ignored ? Bluntly denied ? Source dismissed ? Source to old? Distract to other subjects? Silense?  frown 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-01 16:43:06 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 144):
The only curiosity I have is to see how this x'th prove will be bypassed.

Thank you for posting the link. The report is from 2007; the link I provided to the AW&ST story is 2009. There is a foot note under the table on page 19 of the report you linked pertaining to the $280 million unit cost of the C-17 that I believe is germane:

Quote:
These costs have and will likely fluctuate over time. The procurement cost of future C-17s will
likely be lower than the average, as learning increases and fixed costs are amortized over a
longer production run.

Two years and a longer production run later, we have a lower unit cost.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-01 17:03:07 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 145):
Two years and a longer production run later, we have a lower unit cost.

No the program cost went up during the last few yrs. Check out the SAR Program Acquisition Cost Summary's of recent yrs.

The GAO now expects the C-17 program to total for aquisition of 210 aircraft to be

Total cost: Current estimate: $73,571
Total quantity: First full estimate: 210

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d09326sp.html

That points towards 350 Million per aircraft, & that's a 2009 report.

C-17 maintenance / support contracts are seperate. http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&r...+contract&btnG=Zoeken&lr=&aq=f&oq=

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-01 18:26:19 and read 32767 times.

Keesje, if I wanted to play that game I could have taken the data I posted earlier and escalated the unit cost by 40%. That would be USD$305 million per A400M.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 127):
Earlier this year the French Senate noted that the A400M cost had risen from 145 million euros. That was then. (at USD$1.50 to the euro that's USD$218 million per A400M!)

Fact is you don't really have a good source for the current C-17 cost, do you? And are we discussing fly away costs or life-cycle costs?

I think its very likely that the A400M costs may exceed those of the C-17 by the time it enters squadron service. We should know more shortly.

BTW: This 2007 article pegs the C-17 fly away costs at USD$187 million.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0C-17s%20to%20USAF&channel=defense

Quote:
Boeing's offer was sent to the Air Force April 16, but the company has not provided official comment on the proposal yet. Boeing is "sweetening" the offer by agreeing to limit the cost for the Air Force to a guaranteed $196 million flyaway price for the airframe only, according to a program source.

Today's flyaway is about $186 million, including engines and other government furnished equipment, according to a program source. The sharp increase is a direct result of shutdown activities for long-lead suppliers that began in March because Boeing lacked future sales. In return, Boeing wants to solidify a multiyear buy across three years.

But we must remember this thread is about the A400M. The C-17 is arguably the finest military transport produced in the last 50 years. There are some deals still pending (USAF, UK, India). I found the reports this week that the airbus countries were considering truncating the initial purchase very, very interesting.

[Edited 2009-12-01 18:37:11]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-12-02 00:29:51 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 147):
I think its very likely that the A400M costs may exceed those of the C-17 by the time it enters squadron service.

And I think the C-17 costs more than the space shuttle! I can think what I want!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-02 00:45:05 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 147):
Fact is you don't really have a good source for the current C-17 cost, do you?

No, Lumberton I have no sources at all, specially not in this thread.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 147):
I think its very likely that the A400M costs may exceed those of the C-17 by the time it enters squadron service.

Yes, Lumberton that is very likely, they are just sooo close in price.

 Big grin

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Slz396
Posted 2009-12-02 01:22:44 and read 32767 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
The EU countries wrote their RFPs to fit the A-400M, it was not the other way around.

You mean like the USAF has been forced to do on the RFP for the tanker renewal?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Slz396
Posted 2009-12-02 01:39:31 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 147):
The C-17 is arguably the finest military transport produced in the last 50 years

Just like the A330 is unarguably the finest plane in its class too, yet the USAF MUST pick the 767 frame as basis of their future tanker fleet.

Interestingly enough, the arguments against the 'finest plane' are the same; both officially (i.e. it adds unwanted extra capacity), as off the record (i.e. it's not made by us).

Pot, kettle, black, anybody?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-02 05:02:11 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 151):

Just like the A330 is unarguably the finest plane in its class too, yet the USAF MUST pick the 767 frame as basis of their future tanker fleet.

Interestingly enough, the arguments against the 'finest plane' are the same; both officially (i.e. it adds unwanted extra capacity), as off the record (i.e. it's not made by us).

At least the EU nations openly speak of "industrial policy" factoring into their decision making.

And as Lumberton has pointed out above, EADS is using this as a weapon to abuse the public coffers.

So in every case there's a price to be paid.

A true competition means the jobs may go offshore.

A false competition or no competition means the defense contractor has carte blanche to spend the taxpayer's money.

No easy answer here.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2009-12-02 05:58:37 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
And I think the C-17 costs more than the space shuttle! I can think what I want!

Oh yeah, well I think it costs more than Belgium! No links to prove it though.

Well, hundreds of millions of dollars and small European countries are both kinda abstract concepts to me...

Seriously, this arguing over prices between the two camps is stupid. It's like when a creationist comes into my museum and tries to argue. No one will actually win, and everyone just goes home disappointed.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-02 06:05:43 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 146):
The GAO now expects the C-17 program to total for aquisition of 210 aircraft to be

Total cost: Current estimate: $73,571
Total quantity: First full estimate: 210
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d09326sp.html

That points towards 350 Million per aircraft, & that's a 2009 report.

Read on, yet again....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 138):

And the reality of what this number means has been explained to you time and time again. Hopefully you can finally internalize the following:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
Pricing for the C-17 was originally established in the USAF LRIP contract in 1989. When, then, SOD Chaney cut the original planned buy of 240 C-17s to 120 the price per airplane skyrocketed. Cheney put a program termination in if the prices di not come down by half by airplane delivery #42. That is why MD adjuisted the price down to $172M per airplane beginning at airplane #41. That airplane was budgeted in 1995 and elevered in 1997. Also in 1997, Boeing took over MD, and the price was readjusted for inflation in 1999 to around $200M each. With additional costs cutting since then, the price has not had to keep up with the annual inflation factor (which between FY-2000 and FY-2010 has averaged 2% annually). That puts the current USAF flyaway price at just $202M and the international price at about $220M each. The international price is adjusted upward depending on the packages contracted for, and at what levels, and for how long.

The longer you stay in denial, the more absurd you look.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-02 12:14:49 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 154):
Read on, yet again....

Read it yourself its about 210 airframes. Still $ 350.000.000 aquisition costs. We know what recent customers have paid, Canada, Emirates, Qatar, Australia and what the USAF paid during the last few yrs for C-17s (reply 94).

I think it is fully clear to most who are in denial about aquisition cost of their beloved C-17s.

It's funny, almost..

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-02 13:35:12 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 155):
Read it yourself its about 210 airframes. Still $ 350.000.000 aquisition costs.

Has nothing to do with what one pays today for a C-17.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 155):
We know what recent customers have paid, Canada, Emirates, Qatar, Australia and what the USAF paid during the last few yrs for C-17s (reply 94).

As pointed out repeatedly, those numbers in #94 include things like

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
a 20 year maintenance deal



Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
and related equipment



Quoting Keesje (Reply 155):
I think it is fully clear to most who are in denial about aquisition cost of their beloved C-17s.

I think others must be in denial about the cost of the A400M too:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

Not sure what to make of this, but:

8 / $6.2B = $775M per A-400M

8 / $3.9B = $475M per A-400M

And finally:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 155):
It's funny, almost..

Just about as funny as you refusing to comprehend the difference between "limit load" and "ultimate load" in the 787 threads.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Bennett123
Posted 2009-12-02 14:11:18 and read 32767 times.

Spacepope

Does your view of small European countries as an "abstract concept" extend to the Vatican State  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2009-12-02 17:25:30 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 157):
Does your view of small European countries as an "abstract concept" extend to the Vatican State  

Watch it, or I'll sick San Marino after you, they might bring Lichtenstein and Andorra along for the getaway ride.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2009-12-03 07:47:21 and read 32767 times.

Ze freche niouz:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...a400ms-debut-flight-test-plan.html

Airbus Military has revealed its long-term flight-test programme for the A400M transport, with its first example expected to launch the schedule with a 3h debut flight late next week.

So about a week to go...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-03 08:02:25 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 144):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
So you don't have a link. You are still in denial, my friend. The C-17 prices are what they are,



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 141):
Keesje, don't pass on this heaven sent opportunity; post the link and dispel the doubts.

Why should I ? As I stated it's useless. No source stating what you folks don't want to hear will ever get accepted. Welll ok then here we go again, page 18:

Average Procurement Unit Cost: $280 Million, Ref. Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Department of Defense OUSD (AT&L). Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR). C-17A, C-5AMP, C-5RERP.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c.pdf



Quoting Keesje (Reply 155):
Read it yourself its about 210 airframes. Still $ 350.000.000 aquisition costs. We know what recent customers have paid, Canada, Emirates, Qatar, Australia and what the USAF paid during the last few yrs for C-17s (reply 94).

I think it is fully clear to most who are in denial about aquisition cost of their beloved C-17s.

It's funny, almost..

What is funny is the link he provided does not mention one word about the C-17. It is all C-130 AMP, C-5 AMP and C-5 RERP stuff.

He also does not mention that SAAF would have paid over 3/4 B$ per airframe had they not cancelled the A-400M. Or if EADS did not honor the current Malaysa contract, they would have walked, too. Nor does he ever mention what possible future international sales price of the A-400M will be.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 159):
Ze freche niouz:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...a400ms-debut-flight-test-plan.html

Airbus Military has revealed its long-term flight-test programme for the A400M transport, with its first example expected to launch the schedule with a 3h debut flight late next week.

So about a week to go...

It also say the flight test program will be 3 years long before the French AF gets their first A-400M. What gives with that?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A380900
Posted 2009-12-03 19:07:03 and read 32767 times.

What is Airbus military gaining with this program?Arguably, there is an entry cost to everything and the cost of this airplane must be seen in a bigger light: what if Airbus military is as successful as the civilian airbus has been 40 years from now?

I have a question though: are there any other aircraft that could be made by Airbus military? Is the technology used for the A400M usable in any other useful military plane? What will keep the design bureau of Airbus military busy afterwards? Are they just going to close shop? Is there a plan? What's the follow up. If you don't keep design bureaus busy, they tend to get rusty (see Boeing with the 787 after more than 10 years playing "sleeping beauty", the wake-up has been brutal).

Also the engine: is this engine relevant for European aviation? It would have been great to have started an "Airbus for engines" but we really don't have that with this huge turboprop: it serves no other purpose than the A400M. Isn't that a little stupid? Why didn't they build a new European turbojet? Maybe the plane would have been less "perfect" for military needs but at least you're starting something useful for the European industry. Something that can evolve.

Finally, why on earth did they build it around the M88 which is the Rafale turboprop? Couldn't they start something from scratch rather than recycling some unrelated old crap? I know that I know very little and that my questions are probably silly but I would love to be enlightened. thx.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-12-04 01:43:38 and read 32767 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 161):

Good questions!

May be a smaller twin with the same engine. Either as civil airliner or military cargo plane. Kessje proposed it some time ago.

And did someone ever check the possibility of modern civil turboprop cargo aircrafts? Maybe Fedex and the like would be interested in ultra efficient (enabled by turboprop) cargo aircrafts?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: CMB56
Posted 2009-12-04 02:47:48 and read 32767 times.

Well turbo props for short haul passenger operations have gained back some of their popularity because of fuel costs. Fuel is down right now but that will likely change. For example the Q400. On flights under about 1.5 hours the turbo prop beats the jets. There is some talk of larger turboprops 100+ passengers. Perhaps a big twin with these engines and an even higher cruise speed is possible. What might be gained? A foot hold in the market. A long time back now Airbus built a couple of dozen A300s and parked them because they had no customers. Eventually they sold them, proved the product, and built up their brand. For Europe spending the money at or close to home is preferable to spending it in the US and in the process build up their own aerospace industry. This is a big political point in the US over the tanker program much debated on this site. Regardless of where the work gets done or % US content or which is better the perception is one is foreign and one is home grown. I don't see why Europeans would view the same picture any different from the other side of the pond.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-04 03:22:52 and read 32767 times.

The TP400-D6 are very modern engines. An Earlier design TP400-D1 with the M88 core was not accpeted & a total redign started (D6). Its offers double the engine power of the previous generation Pratt big props. I think it will be used for twin aircraft. It could power sonething A320 sized.. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Turboliner28april.jpg?t=1209337856

AvWeek has an interesting detailed interview with A400M chief test pilot Ed Strongman on testing progress, hitches seen during early test & their (temporary) fixes.


SEVILLE, Spain – Airbus Military said Dec. 2 that it would resume a series of A400M taxi trials after introducing systems refinements in the run-up to the planned first flight in the second half of next week.

Ground tests since the military airlifter was handed over to the flight-test department Nov. 12 identified several areas where enhancements have to be made in the engines, braking system and other areas of the aircraft. Those issues notwithstanding, chief test pilot Ed Strongman will be at the controls of the first flight aircraft. Preparations have been ahead of expectations, he said.
...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Taxi%20Trials%20Set%20To%20Resume


Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A380900
Posted 2009-12-04 06:19:00 and read 32767 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 164):
The TP400-D6 are very modern engines.

Ok. I got my facts wrong then. Maybe they should build an airplane with these engines then. Given the propellers, it would have to be high wing. An Airbus super ATR-400? Or super Q400? Are these props noisy?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: GRIVely
Posted 2009-12-04 06:38:02 and read 32767 times.

Keesje, Thank you for the link to the article. I read it with interest. Most of the issues pointed out seem to be relatively minor but as an old Army aviation officer I was somewhat concerned about the engine nacelle overheating. Under real field conditions of high, hot, and dusty that could be a serious concern. Even landing on a prepared field can be a challenge where the wind picks up dust and debris so any type of active air flow enhancer also floods the engine with additional wear particles.

Also the various heat resistant materials being added to protect the structure adds weight to an aircraft already marginally meeting its design loads.

Your insight into these matters would be appreciated.

Cheers,

The GRIV

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-04 13:46:54 and read 32677 times.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 162):
And did someone ever check the possibility of modern civil turboprop cargo aircrafts? Maybe Fedex and the like would be interested in ultra efficient (enabled by turboprop) cargo aircrafts?

I don't know if there is a market for a 4 turboprop engine cargo airplane. Lockheed did have the L-100 and a -30 version, the civilian version of the C-130E/H/H-30. I don't think it sold very well. There may be a market for a two turboprop cargo airplane, similar to the C-27J and other twin cargo airplanes. They could replace converted freighter versions of the ATR-42/-72, which I believe UPS and FedEx has a few of.

The nacelle overheating problem does not concern me as much. I am more concerned with the heat across the horizontial stabilizer and elevetors. In the engine flight test aboard the C-130K test bed airplane, heat from the engine exhaust scorched and burned these areas slightly. It only happened inflight on the C-130K. I hope they have that problem fixed, but with some of the excessive heat from the exhaust bnurning the tail pipes, and the nacelle overheat problems, either they don't have the problems fixed (which means they should not fly), or this is a very hot running engine. I know the A-400M is a "T-tail", and it should not have any problems like the C-130 had with this engine.

I don't know which it is, but I hope nothing happens.

BTW, the long range weather report for the Seville area calls for several days of rain next week. If that is the case, even I will not complain they didn't make the scheduled FF on the 7th. I want everything to be safe.

[Edited 2009-12-04 13:48:47]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-04 16:31:00 and read 32637 times.

Video of medium speed taxi test http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx

For the heating issue I can imagine, deflection (other outlets), shielding, forced cooling. I imagine the problem occurs on the ground when airflow is minimal. Maybe thrust reverse or unfavorable wind direction in combination with full flaps. Also the airstream of the two counter rotating airstreams could lead the hot airstream closer to each other then more conventional engine configurations. Frankly I have no idea, no doubt Airbus is doing some serious CFD work as we speak  

[Edited 2009-12-04 16:35:15 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-05 05:33:17 and read 32414 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 168):
For the heating issue I can imagine, deflection (other outlets), shielding, forced cooling. I imagine the problem occurs on the ground when airflow is minimal. Maybe thrust reverse or unfavorable wind direction in combination with full flaps. Also the airstream of the two counter rotating airstreams could lead the hot airstream closer to each other then more conventional engine configurations. Frankly I have no idea, no doubt Airbus is doing some serious CFD work as we speak

I also agree that EADS engineers are most likely working to resolve these overheating issues. But will their solutions add additional weight to the airplane? If they add deflectors, even retractable delflectors that will not only add weight, but increase drag, too.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2009-12-05 06:20:38 and read 32391 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 161):
I have a question though: are there any other aircraft that could be made by Airbus military? Is the technology used for the A400M usable in any other useful military plane?



Quoting A380900 (Reply 165):
Maybe they should build an airplane with these engines then.

Who knows. Maybe they should go for a C-130 competitor/replacement powered by a pair of TP-400.
I mean, as perennial as the thing seems to be, the Herc will have to be replaced by something newer eventually...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-05 06:27:14 and read 32387 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 161):
If you don't keep design bureaus busy, they tend to get rusty (see Boeing with the 787 after more than 10 years playing "sleeping beauty", the wake-up has been brutal).

Boeing has been very busy this last decade with new designs and upgrades. Let's assume for a moment you are right and Boeing has been playing "sleeping beauty." How then do you explain Airbus' screw ups with the A380 and the A400M?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: 474218
Posted 2009-12-05 08:45:06 and read 32339 times.



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 170):
Who knows. Maybe they should go for a C-130 competitor/replacement powered by a pair of TP-400.
I mean, as perennial as the thing seems to be, the Herc will have to be replaced by something newer eventually...

I am completely confused, dozens of replies in this forum have stated that the A-400M was the replacement for the C-130 (and the C-17). Now you are suggesting that another new airframe is required to replace the C-130, thus my confusion?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Evomutant
Posted 2009-12-05 09:36:28 and read 32288 times.

Double post

Filler filler filler

[Edited 2009-12-05 09:37:19 by evomutant]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Evomutant
Posted 2009-12-05 09:36:38 and read 32304 times.



Quoting 474218 (Reply 172):
I am completely confused, dozens of replies in this forum have stated that the A-400M was the replacement for the C-130 (and the C-17). Now you are suggesting that another new airframe is required to replace the C-130, thus my confusion?

In short, and ignoring the continuing teeth-pulling of the argument about cost, the A400M is a more capable aircraft than a C-130, and not as capable as a C-17. It was designed to go in the middle. Hence you have the likes of the RAF who operate C-17's, C130J's and A400M's. They are not direct competitors as such.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A380900
Posted 2009-12-05 10:36:10 and read 32296 times.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 171):
Let's assume for a moment you are right and Boeing has been playing "sleeping beauty." How then do you explain Airbus' screw ups with the A380 and the A400M?

A400M: new stuff.

A380: Trouble with cabling but the airplane was sound.


I consider that the 787 is in its own category in terms of screw-up. People tend to draw the analogy between the A380 being late and the 787. To me, it is very different (getting the A380 in the air has never been an issue).

I am absolutely certain that if you keep your engineers "under pressure" by starting new programs in a timely fashion, they tend to not get rusty. Everything works like this, I wonder why you suggest it could be otherwise.

What I'm arguing is that designing planes is a separate business from building planes. It's a little like the difference between cooking and building kitchen. If you stop designing, your know-how can suffer eventhough your newly built airplanes keep looking as good as they used to. That's why when the time comes to start anew, people have lost their bearing on what is possible and what is not. They tend to be overconfident in their abilities because they have not confronted reality in a while.

I think it might have been true to some extent for the A380 as well. On the other hand, I'm sure that the A350, being very close to the A380, with plenty of red hot engineers, will benefit from the A380 problems.

I mean let's face it: who would you rather have designing a new plane? Airbus in 2006 right after the A380 or Boeing circa 2004, 14 years since the 777 program was started. Do you really think that derivatives are as demanding as new types and can keep entire teams up to date?

For aircraft manufacturers, there is a cost for being in "idle". Airbus and Boeing should always be working on new types.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2009-12-06 02:54:39 and read 32148 times.



Quoting 474218 (Reply 172):
dozens of replies in this forum have stated that the A-400M was the replacement for the C-130 (and the C-17).

As stated, the A400 simply is bigger than the C-130.

In the future, many a C-130 operating Air Force will probably want to replace theirs with something else. If they don't need the capacity (and cost) upgrade of an A400M or C-17, they will want something similar in size, which could be an evolution of the tried and tested C-130 or a competitor with similar capacity, performance but which could provide the cost operating advantages of a twin engine architecture while maintaining the operational flexibility of a turboprop.

A twin TP400 engined high-wing military aircraft using the A400M technology could be that competitor. But that's just my point of view, and we're talking a decade or two at least...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-06 05:46:46 and read 32073 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 161):
If you don't keep design bureaus busy, they tend to get rusty (see Boeing with the 787 after more than 10 years playing "sleeping beauty", the wake-up has been brutal).



Quoting A380900 (Reply 175):
I am absolutely certain that if you keep your engineers "under pressure" by starting new programs in a timely fashion, they tend to not get rusty. Everything works like this, I wonder why you suggest it could be otherwise.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 175):
I mean let's face it: who would you rather have designing a new plane? Airbus in 2006 right after the A380 or Boeing circa 2004, 14 years since the 777 program was started. Do you really think that derivatives are as demanding as new types and can keep entire teams up to date?

None of that is true, The Boeing engineers did not get some 14 years "off" In the time between the B-777 and B-7E7 (which became the B-787), Boeing engineers worked on at least three commericial and three-four military project for new airplanes. They were the B-747-500 and B-747-600 (I am not counting the still born B-747-700 which went now where), and the Sonic Cruiser. All three projects went deeply into the engineering design phase including wind tunnel testing. Boeing military engineers also worked for years on their version of the JSF, called the F-36A. They even had a fly-off against the LM F-35A, but lost. Boeing engineers also developed the HH-47F and HH-47G helios, for C-SAR-X and SpecOps. Boeing IDS also has the F-15SE project they are currently working on.

No the Boeing engineers have not been sitting on their slide-sticks.

For EADS, have you forgotten the still born A-350 Mk.I, Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV, and Mk.V, before settling on the current design of the Mk. VI version?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-12-06 05:55:25 and read 32064 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 175):
I am absolutely certain that if you keep your engineers "under pressure" by starting new programs in a timely fashion, they tend to not get rusty. Everything works like this, I wonder why you suggest it could be otherwise.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 175):
I mean let's face it: who would you rather have designing a new plane? Airbus in 2006 right after the A380 or Boeing circa 2004, 14 years since the 777 program was started. Do you really think that derivatives are as demanding as new types and can keep entire teams up to date?

For aircraft manufacturers, there is a cost for being in "idle". Airbus and Boeing should always be working on new types.

I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume that these engineers while not designing a/c and sitting around twiddling their thumbs being paid by Boeing or Airbus to do nothing. A lot of the designers are contract employees, so once the project is done they are gone. The A380, 787 and A400M have not had many design and or engineering problems - wing body on the 787 was design -, the bulk of problems have been on the managerial level which is where I think your argument falls. Management tends to forget how involved a new a/c project is and end up taking shortcut and believeing the "get this done now" obliterates the science.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 176):
As stated, the A400 simply is bigger than the C-130.

I have seen numerous post in all the various threads where it has been touted as a "poor mans" C-17, a better C-130, a bigger than C-130 and smaller than C-17, in todays world we tend to have this belief that the only justification for a new project must come at the expense of an existing product.
Bummer

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-06 06:30:59 and read 32040 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 175):
What I'm arguing is that designing planes is a separate business from building planes. It's a little like the difference between cooking and building kitchen. If you stop designing, your know-how can suffer eventhough your newly built airplanes keep looking as good as they used to. That's why when the time comes to start anew, people have lost their bearing on what is possible and what is not. They tend to be overconfident in their abilities because they have not confronted reality in a while.

Incorrect, Boeing engineers have not been sitting around doing nothing since the 777 was designed.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 175):
I mean let's face it: who would you rather have designing a new plane? Airbus in 2006 right after the A380 or Boeing circa 2004, 14 years since the 777 program was started. Do you really think that derivatives are as demanding as new types and can keep entire teams up to date?

Boeing and Airbus are both constantly designing new airplanes, improvements to existing airplanes, and derivatives. A lot of designs never see the light of day. Boeing engineers were not sitting around for 14 years doing nothing.

However if your erroneous assumptions were correct I'd rather have the Boeing engineers who were just a little rusty than the busy Airbus engineers who proved themselves incompetent.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2009-12-06 07:22:21 and read 31999 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 178):
in todays world we tend to have this belief that the only justification for a new project must come at the expense of an existing product.

It's true. But in a way, the reason a new aircraft (or anything else) is designed is to fulfill the needs of customers which no other aircraft (or anything else) could fulfill before, whatever those needs may be. Hence part of the reason the A400M was designed is because it fits a list of specifications that the C-130, C-17 or others didn't.

Justification for a new product doesn't necessarily come at the expense of another product, but comparisons are inevitable.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-06 09:04:09 and read 31965 times.



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 180):
Hence part of the reason the A400M was designed is because it fits a list of specifications that the C-130, C-17 or others didn't.

Well, let's not get to carried away here. We don't really know if the A-400M will fill its list of specs., yet. It is designed to fill these specs. but has yet to prove it will do that. We are not even at FF yet.

Does anyone have the forcast weather in Seville for the week? I looked at what I could see for here in DFW the other day, but that may not be what they are seeing in Seville.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Art
Posted 2009-12-07 01:21:39 and read 31688 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.

I thought it was drastically overweight. Isn't performance bound to fall a long way short of expectations?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A380900
Posted 2009-12-07 03:18:24 and read 31604 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 177):
All three projects went deeply into the engineering design phase including wind tunnel testing.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 179):
Boeing and Airbus are both constantly designing new airplanes, improvements to existing airplanes, and derivatives. A lot of designs never see the light of day. Boeing engineers were not sitting around for 14 years doing nothing.

Nothing compares with really building an aircraft. I'm not talkin about some guy playing around with CATIA. I'm talking about the entire process of turning aluminium (or composite) into a full fledge flying machine. I mean it's the same for an army: do you think training and exercising is keeping an army on top of its game? Well, I'd rather go with a battalion that has just experienced fire.

Also, people who created the 777 did leave Boeing and did other stuff. That's part of the problem. Teams disappear if you don't use them. 14 years without a new program was too long. I'm sure the problems with the 787 will be a testament to that. And don't think that we've seen the end of it after first flight.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-07 04:32:07 and read 31554 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 183):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 177):
All three projects went deeply into the engineering design phase including wind tunnel testing.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 179):
Boeing and Airbus are both constantly designing new airplanes, improvements to existing airplanes, and derivatives. A lot of designs never see the light of day. Boeing engineers were not sitting around for 14 years doing nothing.

Nothing compares with really building an aircraft. I'm not talkin about some guy playing around with CATIA. I'm talking about the entire process of turning aluminium (or composite) into a full fledge flying machine.

That is not practical, for Boeing or Airbus. Neither can afford to build a prototype from every design proposal.

Today is 7 December (Pearl Harbor day in the US, but not a holiday). Has anyone heard anything from Seville? What is the weather like there today and throughout this week?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: SpeedyGonzales
Posted 2009-12-07 05:16:56 and read 31523 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 184):
What is the weather like there today and throughout this week?

The weather in Sevilla looks good on storm.no:
http://www.storm.no/vaer/14672873
I don't know where they get their forecasts for Spain though.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-07 06:01:13 and read 31484 times.



Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 185):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 184):
What is the weather like there today and throughout this week?

The weather in Sevilla looks good on storm.no:
http://www.storm.no/vaer/14672873
I don't know where they get their forecasts for Spain though.

Thanks, looks like they will have VFR weather Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. After that the winds may be to high for the A-400M first flight.

Today, Tuesday, and Wednesday the cloud deck may be to low for them to have VFR weather. They might have VMC at best.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: JBirdAV8r
Posted 2009-12-07 12:04:31 and read 31270 times.



Quoting A380900 (Reply 183):
Nothing compares with really building an aircraft. I'm not talkin about some guy playing around with CATIA. I'm talking about the entire process of turning aluminium (or composite) into a full fledge flying machine. I mean it's the same for an army: do you think training and exercising is keeping an army on top of its game? Well, I'd rather go with a battalion that has just experienced fire.

Also, people who created the 777 did leave Boeing and did other stuff. That's part of the problem. Teams disappear if you don't use them. 14 years without a new program was too long. I'm sure the problems with the 787 will be a testament to that. And don't think that we've seen the end of it after first flight.

Well, it's news to me that the people who built the first 777 just up and left and don't actively build new aircraft today. Do you think all they do these days is slap the parts together?

As someone who deals in manufacturing every day, I can tell you this isn't a valid argument.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-07 12:14:38 and read 31271 times.

Don't forget that since the first model of the B-777 was built (B-777-200A) some 14 years ago, there have been 5 additional models of the B-777 (B-777-200ER, B-777-300, B-777-300ER, B-777-200LR, and B-777-200LRF).

But, I think we need to get back the the A-400M FF, or the mods will shut this thread down.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Flyglobal
Posted 2009-12-08 13:05:38 and read 30881 times.

According to German newspaper the first A400 flight is now officially scheduled for Friday Dec. 11 around 10:00h or 11:00h European time.

Regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-12-08 14:22:27 and read 30830 times.

FF must be getting close see the Rejected Take Off below, although in the video there seem to be some strange noises when the RTO is initiated, is that brakes or Reverse thrust?

The TP400s sounds pretty good though.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-08 15:52:14 and read 30745 times.

What are the three stripes they have on each side of the tail? On both sides, they break up the "A-400M" logo. Are they newly installed flat antennas?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-08 16:34:24 and read 30731 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 191):
What are the three stripes they have on each side of the tail? On both sides, they break up the "A-400M" logo. Are they newly installed flat antennas?

Maybe duct tape covering wiring / sensors for testing.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-12-09 01:28:15 and read 30532 times.



Quoting Art (Reply 182):
I thought it was drastically overweight. Isn't performance bound to fall a long way short of expectations?

According to Airbus and other sources *all* A400 for the forseeable future will be overwieght. However Airbus says it will meet the payload requirements past the first few test frames. Reading between the lines of everything they are pulling out alot of the "optional" items both to reduce wieght and cost and are doing a MTOW growth to restore payload capacity.

The other metrics should decline with the MTOW growth like takeoff performance, range, etc. They might restore these some of these lost attributes like range if the engines and airframe are more effiecent than estimated. The A380 recovered its lost range from being overwieght in this manner.

My own thoughts are anyone who buys the first decade of production is going to be taken to the cleaners with horrible performance at stupidly highpriced per-unit cost. Once they have a decade or so of new toys to put in and experience in building/operating the A400M it will mature into something far better. If that sounds familar thats because thats how it seems like almost all modern military aircraft are. The real challange for the A400M is getting the suckers, I mean current customers to pay up and keep it alive till the project can mature... Currently I just don't see the money being avalible to keep it alive 10+ years from EIS AND develop it further.

Airbus certainly seems to me to be guessing where they might find orders since they estimate 400 sales to North America... Which has exactly 0 nations in that region that would order the A400M even before the delays and cost challanges. Canada can't for the fact that any politician who supported a buy would find his next election a landslide for the other guy. America can buy C17 all day long for a minimum cost. Mexico and others south have 0 need for a A400M and C130 class aircraft are actualy *better* for them given they are far cheaper and easier to support.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-09 02:26:42 and read 30490 times.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 193):

According to Airbus and other sources *all* A400 for the forseeable future will be overwieght. However Airbus says it will meet the payload requirements past the first few test frames.

According to EADS all airframes will meet contractual performance specification, including the initial ones.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 193):
The A380 recovered its lost range from being overwieght in this manner.

The A380 was less than 2% overweight with its MEW, considering the interior weighs 15-20 times more than what it was overweight by, they had a lot of scope to reduce weight elsewhere before they reached the target OEW.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 193):
America can buy C17 all day long for a minimum cost.

Rubbish, DoD figures show the purchase price on C-17s increasing towards 300 million

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-12-09 02:54:33 and read 30462 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 194):
Rubbish, DoD figures show the purchase price on C-17s increasing towards 300 million

Rubbish, DOD figures have shown that the C17 prices are increasing to around the same price they have been for decades.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 194):
The A380 was less than 2% overweight with its MEW, considering the interior weighs 15-20 times more than what it was overweight by, they had a lot of scope to reduce weight elsewhere before they reached the target OEW.

yes, lets pull figures out of our er... hat. Way to undersell the acomplishment Airbus has with the A380. The A380 was quite overweight, but they beat thier estimites for drag by a good margin restoring performance for the early customers. Later customers will get something even better than Airbus had hoped for. Never thought I'd see you run Airbus under. We don't know if the A400 will follow suit or not which is why I posted as I did. Simply being overwieght doesn't automaticly mean its going to miss on range/payload.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 194):
According to EADS all airframes will meet contractual performance specification, including the initial ones.

According to EADS no they are not. They are not running to the various customer governments with modifications to the standard equipment list and price list for giggles. They have clearly indicated they need to simplify the basic airframe for both cost and wieght reasons. Time pressures may also be affecting this as the integration of some of the more 'luxury' items such as refueling isn't exactly free. This is a good idea IMO as getting a basic airframe done and polished up is more important than having every bell and whistle from day 0.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-09 04:05:19 and read 30397 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 192):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 191):
What are the three stripes they have on each side of the tail? On both sides, they break up the "A-400M" logo. Are they newly installed flat antennas?

Maybe duct tape covering wiring / sensors for testing.

Good point, then they are probably strain gauges. Thanks, that makes sense.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 194):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 193):
America can buy C17 all day long for a minimum cost.

Rubbish, DoD figures show the purchase price on C-17s increasing towards 300 million



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 195):
Rubbish, DOD figures have shown that the C17 prices are increasing to around the same price they have been for decades.

I see we are back to the C-17 pricing, again.

The flyaway price per C-17A/ER in FY-2010 for the USAF is slightly under $225M per aircraft. There is another $25M per aircraft for spares and initial depot per aircraft. So, I guess you can say each C-17 package deal is about $250M per aircraft. The same price will extend into (at least FY-2011). Only 3 of the 10 C-17s, below, have been approved and/or funded.

"FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept.
111-230 of July 24, 2009) on H.R. 3326, recommended $762.6 million in procurement funding
for the C-17 program, including $674.1 million for the procurement of three C-17s. The
paragraph in the bill that makes funding available for the procurement of Air Force aircraft states
that the funds are made available, “Provided, That no funds provided in this Act for the
procurement or modernization of C-17 aircraft may be obligated until all C-17 contracts funded
with prior year ‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’ appropriated funds are definitized.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-74 of September 10, 2009) on
H.R. 3326, recommended $2,588.5 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program,
including $2,500.0 million for the procurement of 10 C-17s. S.Amdt. 2558, proposed on
September 29, 2009, would strike from H.R. 3326 funding for C-17 procurement in excess of the amount requested by administration (i.e., it would strike the $2.5 billion in the bill for the
procurement of 10 C-17s)"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

This document is dated 7 October 2009, so it is still reasonably current.

That is still a USAF price of about $225M per airplane, and another $25M for the spares and maintenance (depot) "package".

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-12-09 04:05:36 and read 30400 times.

First flight will be this Friday!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...400m-first-flight-this-friday.html

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Gipsy
Posted 2009-12-09 04:40:43 and read 30349 times.

Nice looking forward to FF on Friday!

To the never ending pricing discussion  Wink

I think it's not valid to compare the C17 price now to the current A400M price negotiations
because you don't know how the A400M program will develop and it's natural that with ongoing production the price can/will be lowered due to known accounting/economic/engineering reasons mentioned before...also you have to take into account the falling $ and rising € value..

But nevertheless I have a few questions;
I looked at this GAO report here http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pd1
Quote:
"At the end
of fiscal year 1996, the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent about
$20.5 billion to develop the C-17 and purchase 28 aircraft. It plans to buy a
total of 120 C-17s at an estimated cost of $43 billion."

Does this mean that the devolopment costs are included in the total of bill. 43$ ?
Or are they added to it and the 28 A/C subtracted from the 120 and leaving 920 with a price tag of bill. 43$ ?

In case of adiition this would make a price of 468312500€ per A/C with a 1997 exchange rate (I took DM and divided by 2)

In case of substraction I get 3171125000€
per A/C

I think this is a more accurate comparision...comparing initial stages and taking into account a more ballanced exchange rate, as no one could foresee the massive Dollar devaluation (political I believe, to better serve debt payments, but I could be wrong on this )

 Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-09 05:13:51 and read 30318 times.



Quoting Gipsy (Reply 198):
But nevertheless I have a few questions;
I looked at this GAO report here http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pd1
Quote:
"At the end
of fiscal year 1996, the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent about
$20.5 billion to develop the C-17 and purchase 28 aircraft. It plans to buy a
total of 120 C-17s at an estimated cost of $43 billion."

Does this mean that the devolopment costs are included in the total of bill. 43$ ?
Or are they added to it and the 28 A/C subtracted from the 120 and leaving 920 with a price tag of bill. 43$ ?

In case of adiition this would make a price of 468312500€ per A/C with a 1997 exchange rate (I took DM and divided by 2)

In case of substraction I get 3171125000€
per A/C

No, the C-17 flyawy price was readjusted to $172M per aircraft in 1995. To date, the total spent on the C-17 program, including the developement costs and 213 airplanes is about $29B-$32B.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 90):
"and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer of 1995 cost savings brought down the cost of the C-17 to $172 million in "flyaway cost" per aircraft in constant 1995 dollars]. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y.htm

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-12-09 05:51:08 and read 30270 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 199):
No, the C-17 flyawy price was readjusted to $172M per aircraft in 1995. To date, the total spent on the C-17 program, including the developement costs and 213 airplanes is about $29B-$32B.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 90):
"and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer of 1995 cost savings brought down the cost of the C-17 to $172 million in "flyaway cost" per aircraft in constant 1995 dollars]. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y.htm

So you're now saying that over the entire program each C-17 has $136-150M each, is that in 1995 $ or what, even you don't claim that low a price.

This whole price thing is a waste of time anyway, C-17 is now a mature product( with all it's well known development problems behind it) and the A400M is in development, and experiencing it's own problems.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-09 06:21:00 and read 30378 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 196):

According to page 21 of the the report "Strategic Airlift Modernization: Analysis of C-5 Modernization and C-17 Acquisition Issues" from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf last updated april 2008

"Average Procurement Unit Cost" for the C-17 is US$280 million.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 197):
First flight will be this Friday!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Wx forecast seems okay for that.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-09 06:49:07 and read 30354 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 201):
last updated april 2008

You and Keesje both like using outdated sources for pricing the C-17. Use recent sources like TopBoom and you'll see what the price is for a C-17 today which is all that matters. No one cares what it cost in 1993 or what the average price has been over the years. Only the current flyaway cost matters. You and Keesje keep throwing in items like mx, spares, training, etc. on top of the purchase price to try and bolster your position that the C-17 costs $300 million + while ignoring the same items on the A400M. This has been disproven so many times that it isn't worth discussing anymore.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 196):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

This document is dated 7 October 2009, so it is still reasonably current.

That is still a USAF price of about $225M per airplane, and another $25M for the spares and maintenance (depot) "package".

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-09 07:07:36 and read 30331 times.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 193):
My own thoughts are anyone who buys the first decade of production is going to be taken to the cleaners with horrible performance at stupidly highpriced per-unit cost. Once they have a decade or so of new toys to put in and experience in building/operating the A400M it will mature into something far better. If that sounds familar thats because thats how it seems like almost all modern military aircraft are. The real challange for the A400M is getting the suckers, I mean current customers to pay up and keep it alive till the project can mature... Currently I just don't see the money being avalible to keep it alive 10+ years from EIS AND develop it further.

Indeed, this is the way things go. C-17 now has the advantage of reaching maturity. Hopefully A400M can say the same thing too, 10-15 years from now.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 197):
First flight will be this Friday!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...400m-first-flight-this-friday.html

Excellent!  champagne 

Quoting Gipsy (Reply 198):
I think it's not valid to compare the C17 price now to the current A400M price negotiations
because you don't know how the A400M program will develop and it's natural that with ongoing production the price can/will be lowered due to known accounting/economic/engineering reasons mentioned before

Yes that's a central point.

As above, the early adoptors get to pay for the development costs.

By the time they are paid, the result is a much more mature product due to improvements in time, and the ability to sell the product at a lower price due to the paydown of the development costs.

Certain people here keep insisting the price you pay today for an aircraft is the total program cost divided by the number of planes sold, and that's WRONG!

Quoting Overcast (Reply 200):

This whole price thing is a waste of time anyway, C-17 is now a mature product( with all it's well known development problems behind it) and the A400M is in development, and experiencing it's own problems.

I'm glad you grasp that.

Certain posters here can't seem to do so, or don't seem to want to.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-09 07:11:32 and read 30332 times.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
You and Keesje both like using outdated sources for pricing the C-17.

Unless you can provide us with the 2009 Department of Defense Acquisition Report for the C-17, the 2008 numbers are as recent as they get, it reflects the actual price paid.

What Congress budgets and what the DoD spends more often than not is not the same.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
You and Keesje keep throwing in items like mx, spares, training, etc. on top of the purchase price to try and bolster your position that the C-17 costs $300 million + while ignoring the same items on the A400M.

People like yourself do the same for the A400M, lack of consistency in your posts. The number I presented was the what the DoD says is the current average price of the C-17, not for the additional items you presented.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-09 07:46:57 and read 30283 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
People like yourself do the same for the A400M, lack of consistency in your posts. The number I presented was the what the DoD says is the current average price of the C-17, not for the additional items you presented.

No I don't do the same. I simply point out how you and Keesje include all the bonus items in the C-17 vs. just the airframe cost of the A400M. I say do a fair comparison, all the extras vs. all the extras or just the airframe vs. just the airframe.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
What Congress budgets and what the DoD spends more often than not is not the same.

Congress provides the money to the DoD. The DoD doesn't have any money till congress gives it to them. If they provide $674 million to buy 3 airframes in 2009 then simple math tells us that the airframe costs roughly $225 million. Again your own link has "average procurement cost of the C-17." We don't care what the average is we care what it costs today.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-09 14:18:26 and read 30053 times.

The shake down begins, and I'm not talking about the preparations for first flight.

EADS wants 5 bln euros from A400M buyers-Germany

Quote:
BERLIN, Dec 9 (Reuters) - European aerospace group EADS is seeking 5 billion euros extra from the countries which have ordered the delayed Airbus A400M military transporter, a spokesman for the German defence ministry said on Wednesday.

The spokesman said the German government was now assessing the request made by EADS. Earlier, a senior official said EADS had not made any additional requests for the A400M.

UPDATE 2-Soaring cost exposed as A400M sets debut flight

Quote:
BERLIN/PARIS, Dec 9 (Reuters) - Germany lifted the lid on a 5 billion euro ($7.4 billion) cost overrun on Europe's A400M military transport plane on Wednesday, raising the stakes for a long-delayed maiden flight that Airbus scheduled for Friday.

A German defence spokesman said the European planemaker's parent company EADS (EAD.PA) had told buyers the 20 billion euro project to develop a European heavy airlifter for combat and humanitarian missions was 25 percent over budget.

"We are talking about roughly 5 billion euros," a spokesman for the German defence ministry said.

The overshoot follows engine delays and other problems that have plagued Europe's largest defence project. Facing penalties, EADS blames part of the delay on past political interference and is seeking a deal on costs with a group of seven NATO buyers.

EADS is correct about political interference. I've always maintained that EADS will get everything they demand from the member governments--even Germany. This article in Der Spiegel has highlighted severe "challenges" coping with the dollar/euro exchange rate. More job losses simply won't be tolerated by the voters. The governments will cave in to EADS' demands. However, another five billion euros won't establish a "ceiling"; more likely a "floor". Costs will continue to rise. I maintain that each A400M will cost more than a C-17 when this thing enters squadron service.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,665862,00.html

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-09 14:58:31 and read 30030 times.

Interesting timing on the new leak. It seems timed to get the bad news out soon enough before first flight so it'll be "old news" by Friday's first flight. If it came out after, it could drown out the good vibes from the first flight.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-12-09 15:11:46 and read 30025 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):
I maintain that each A400M will cost more than a C-17 when this thing enters squadron service.

And all EU members and their supportes will state that is the price they are willing to pay to have their own native military transport and not have to worry about any "American" influence over when and where they can use their transport a/c. This is not a bad thing, Europeans would understand the US doing this with the KC-X and VH-71 rather than saying there must be a competition.

The main difference in my opinion is American's are more "materialistic" and Europeans are more "nationalistic", hence American's have a problem with the cost of the VH71, F-22, KC-X etc. how many projects has Airbus / EADS had to cancel because of cost overruns? EU members pay taxes like Americans, recognize a deal like anyone else and also know when they are getting the short end of the stick, so the issue has to be something else other than simple math. This is not a bad thing, in Europe the government is much more actively involved in the economy than just charging taxes, different form of government is all.
My opinon only, no source whatsoever, so....... Smile

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):
This article in Der Spiegel has highlighted severe "challenges" coping with the dollar/euro exchange rate. More job losses simply won't be tolerated by the voters

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-09 15:29:57 and read 30072 times.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 208):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):
I maintain that each A400M will cost more than a C-17 when this thing enters squadron service.

And all EU members and their supportes will state that is the price they are willing to pay to have their own native military transport and not have to worry about any "American" influence over when and where they can use their transport a/c.

I think in reality the Europeans have a problem with a A400M cost rise that still keeps it way, way below C-17 cost price. I think the American influence thing is also not based on reality, it just never happened.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 208):
The main difference in my opinion is American's are more "materialistic" and Europeans are more "nationalistic",

Europe nationalistic? You mean the EC, 24 countries/ former enemies/ competitors fighting each other & Bruxelles? Who told you so..

Quoting Par13del (Reply 208):
how many projects has Airbus / EADS had to cancel because of cost overruns?

Yes, how many big projects have there been anyway in recent decades ?   

Quoting Par13del (Reply 208):
American's have a problem with the cost of the VH71, F-22, KC-X etc.

I have seen cost estimations of the F22, C-17, B2, V22. No way in h.ll could you such huge cost overruns get approved - continued in Europe, no way.

[Edited 2009-12-09 15:46:10 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-09 15:31:12 and read 30032 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 208):
Europeans would understand the US doing this with the KC-X and VH-71 rather than saying there must be a competition.

Huh? I haven't seen any evidence of that here!  duck 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-12-09 15:44:16 and read 30025 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 209):
I think in reality the Europeans have a problem with a A400M cost rise that still keeps it way, way below C-17 cost price. I think the American influence things is also not based on reality, it never happened.

I never said they did not have a problem with it, just that it won't be cancelled, I'm sure they will be complaining while paying the bill  Smile

Quoting Keesje (Reply 209):
Europe nationalistic? You men the Ec, 24 countries/ former enemies/ competitors fighting each other & Bruxelles? Who told you so..

Nationalistic in terms of supporting their native products, yes they also buy foreign goods.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 209):
Yes, how many big projects have there been anyway in recent decades

I stand corrected, in typical a.net fashion everything is Airbus and EADS, like the French, I should have said European, apologies.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 209):
I have seen cost estimations of the F22, C-17, B2, V22. No way in h.ll could you such huge cost overruns get approved - continued in Europe, no way.

Yeah but they are also the worlds policeman, so the numbers have to go up  Smile

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 210):
Huh? I haven't seen any evidence of that here!

My bad, rough day at work  Smile

Looking forward to a great week, Oasis of the Seas arrives here on Friday - trying to skip work - and the A400M may go up and the 787 a week of two later, its getting to be a great December.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-12-09 21:43:34 and read 29913 times.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
Use recent sources like TopBoom

Like 1995?  rotfl 

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):
A German defence spokesman said the European planemaker's parent company EADS (EAD.PA) had told buyers the 20 billion euro project to develop a European heavy airlifter for combat and humanitarian missions was 25 percent over budget.

"We are talking about roughly 5 billion euros," a spokesman for the German defence ministry said.

About normal for a new defenc(s)e programme I would say.... either side of the atlantic  Smile

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-12-09 23:35:00 and read 29859 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 212):

About normal for a new defenc(s)e programme I would say.... either side of the atlantic

Sadly this is almost an understatement. Its troubling that it seems like 100% of the recent programs are a plane made of smoke and mirrors put into a "competition" then after it wins the company turns on a fan, blows the smoke away and then spends billions more than they quoted to start designing a plane that somewhat resembles what they "prototyped" for the contest. The F22 is the current gold standard for it.

The A400M is a chump compared to many programs for its ability to wasted billions to no purpose. Yet I have to jump on it as hard as the contract was a commercial contract with fixed PENALTIES for failure to meet the contracted terms, and suddenly we are seeing it morph into a cost+ boondoggle style contract with no one much saying anything about it.

ah well enough bitter words, time will tell if the A400M is worth all this. Nothing but time will at this point.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-10 07:16:32 and read 29608 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):

UPDATE 2-Soaring cost exposed as A400M sets debut flight

This one has some interesting info on how negotiations are seen to be progressing:

Quote:

Negotiators are looking for ways to close the gap without asking taxpayers for any new cash, at least for the time being, since leading buyers such as Britain have made plain there is no new cash available during the recession.

One way being considered to square the circle would be to deliver about 25 percent fewer planes under the same budget, equating to an increase in the unit price per plane, which now stands at around 100 million euros [ID:nGEE5AO0Y4].

The remaining planes would then be left in budget limbo until new funds can be found when economies improve.

The idea is broadly backed by Britain, France and Spain, according to sources close to the talks.

But Germany is so far reluctant to make concessions on price that would involve a reduction in guaranteed deliveries.

Berlin reiterated on Wednesday that it needed all 60 planes it had ordered, a third of the total number of 180 ordered by the core group of seven purchasing nations. [ID:nBAT004991]

An alternative plan being considered for at least one country would see payments staggered in such a way that allowed EADS to keep receiving regular payments even where there was a gap in deliveries, amounting to an advance on later planes.

[snip]

One source close to the talks said Germany was pushing for guarantees on technical specifications including cargo handling and the availability of complex terrain-hugging software to help the bulky transport planes dodge enemy fire at low altitudes.

So it seems Britain, France and Spain are in favor of spending the same amount of money and get fewer planes for it.

One wonders how this would work for Airbus: the smaller number of planes would clearly reduce the cost side of the equation, but given how much cash Airbus has put out already, will the resulting program with the small number of frames have any hope of break even?

It seems Germany is holding out for the plane with all the bells and whistles, whereas the others are more willing to let functionality slide.

We could end up with the death of a thousand cuts: the initial buy is small and hugely expensive so the cost sensitive ones will not want to order more, and the ones who want the full functionality will have to largely fund that themselves instead of spreading it across the (now reduced) total buy so those frames will be even more expensive. There's just no easy outcome I can see here. It seems it could end up with UK, FR, and ES getting a small number of more basic but still very expensive frames, and DE may end up with the full number of full function frames that would be extremely expensive.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-10 07:23:09 and read 29614 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 212):
Like 1995?  

Umm....no  Confused , like 2009

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 196):
"FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept.
111-230 of July 24, 2009) on H.R. 3326, recommended $762.6 million in procurement funding
for the C-17 program, including $674.1 million for the procurement of three C-17s. The
paragraph in the bill that makes funding available for the procurement of Air Force aircraft states
that the funds are made available, “Provided, That no funds provided in this Act for the
procurement or modernization of C-17 aircraft may be obligated until all C-17 contracts funded
with prior year ‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’ appropriated funds are definitized.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-74 of September 10, 2009) on
H.R. 3326, recommended $2,588.5 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program,
including $2,500.0 million for the procurement of 10 C-17s. S.Amdt. 2558, proposed on
September 29, 2009, would strike from H.R. 3326 funding for C-17 procurement in excess of the amount requested by administration (i.e., it would strike the $2.5 billion in the bill for the
procurement of 10 C-17s)"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

This document is dated 7 October 2009, so it is still reasonably current.

That is still a USAF price of about $225M per airplane, and another $25M for the spares and maintenance (depot) "package".

I'd say a 2009 price quote of $225 million is pretty current, don't you agree Astuteman?

Again I don't care what the USAF paid for the C-17 in 1993, 1995, or even 2008. I only care what price they are paying for it now. Current evidence shows $225 million per airframe.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-10 07:47:14 and read 29603 times.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 215):
I'd say a 2009 price quote of $225 million is pretty current, don't you agree Astuteman?

I think a undefined keep the line open, political, national purchase of 3 aircraft can't be taken as representative for wath european airforces should pay (have paid) for the C-17.

With the $ inflation and recent contracts being openly communicated I think a radical costs implosion on the C-17 is unlikely.

See reply 94 for extensive references. Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support. and it won't go away  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-10 13:20:47 and read 29407 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 216):
I think a undefined keep the line open, political, national purchase of 3 aircraft can't be taken as representative for wath european airforces should pay (have paid) for the C-17.

And a 4 aircraft order from a brand new operator (read: additional training costs for crew, mx personnel, etc.) is a good indicator of what the price is paid today?

You constantly try run the costs of the C-17 up by including things like training costs into the purchase price of airframe to arrive at your $300 million + dollar conclusion. Your own source from reply 94 showing your erroneous inclusion of training and spares in the C-17 airframe costs:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive – the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft. Constant US government pressure reduced that price slightly but these numbers vary depending on what is being counted. DND originally estimated the cost of 6 C-17s at $1-to-$1.6B.[3] But the cost given for the new Airlift Capability Program-Strategic is $3.4B for only 4 C-17s (or US$762.5M each) due to a 20 year maintenance deal. Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.
http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm

-> $330M a ship

In the same reply you included the extras with the Australians to try and prove that the C-17 is $500 million per airframe:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency today notified Congress of a possible $2 billion sale of C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft and related equipment to Australia.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93258,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

-> $500M a ship

Of course you ignored this fact:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
RAAF got 4 C-17s, a 30 year maintenance contract, training and continuing training (Boeing just delivered new C-17 simulators cockpit and cargo hold), as well as full spares and depot level maintenance (the first RAAF C-17 is scheduled into San Antonio next summer) for 30 years. Here is the news replease on the sims;

You've been dishonest the entire discussion in relation to the price of the C-17. We have all pointed out your erroneous methods like including training and spares into the total cost of the airframe but you keep doing it. There have been plenty of links on here showing that the airframe cost of the C-17 is not $300 million.

If you want to have a real comparison of the A400 vs. C-17 then you need to have an equal comparison of the two. Airframe cost vs. Airframe cost or Everything vs. Everything.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-10 16:00:01 and read 29318 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 201):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 196):


According to page 21 of the the report "Strategic Airlift Modernization: Analysis of C-5 Modernization and C-17 Acquisition Issues" from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf last updated april 2008

"Average Procurement Unit Cost" for the C-17 is US$280 million.

Zeke, you didn't mention a few other things in that report that show the price per C-17 is not anywhere near $280M.

It also say, in that same graph;

"a. Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Department of Defense OUSD (AT&L). Defense Acquisition
Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR). C-17A, C-5AMP, C-5RERP.
b. These costs have and will likely fluctuate over time. The procurement cost of future C-17s will
likely be lower than the average, as learning increases and fixed costs are amortized over a
longer production run."

"Making an “apples-to-apples” comparison of C-5 and C-17 costs is
complicated. The scope and time frame considered (e.g., flyaway cost, procurement
cost, life-cycle cost), rate of production assumed, and procurement approach used
(e.g., multi-year, annual, or supplemental procurement) all affect comparisons. For
example, it is estimated 10 C-17s procured via annual congressional earmark cost
approximately $20 million more per aircraft than C-17s procured via multiyear
contracts.74 Consequently, some may question whether it is appropriate to compare
these costs to those incurred by acquisitions included in annual Air Force budgets.
Table 3 summarizes some factors to consider when comparing costs of C-5
modernization with C-17 procurement."

You also forgot to include this tid bid of information;

"Analysis was based on C-17 procurement of 135 aircraft, compared
with the 190-aircraft program of record today."

Then there is also this in the same report pricing the C-17 at just over $253M each.

"Proponents of C-17 acquisition have suggested that retiring some C-5s early
could make funds available for additional C-17s. However, these funds do not “line
up” in the DOD budget. C-5 RERP procurement funds for FY2008 are only $253
million — just less than the cost of a single C-17."

Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
You and Keesje both like using outdated sources for pricing the C-17. Use recent sources like TopBoom and you'll see what the price is for a C-17 today which is all that matters. No one cares what it cost in 1993 or what the average price has been over the years. Only the current flyaway cost matters. You and Keesje keep throwing in items like mx, spares, training, etc. on top of the purchase price to try and bolster your position that the C-17 costs $300 million while ignoring the same items on the A400M. This has been disproven so many times that it isn't worth discussing anymore.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 196):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

This document is dated 7 October 2009, so it is still reasonably current.

That is still a USAF price of about $225M per airplane, and another $25M for the spares and maintenance (depot) "package".

Which brings the "packaged aircraft up to around $250M, about what I found in Zeke's link.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 203):
Indeed, this is the way things go. C-17 now has the advantage of reaching maturity. Hopefully A400M can say the same thing too, 10-15 years from now.

Wait a minute. There are currently 184 A-400Ms on order, at 18.4 airplane per year, that is about 10 years and 3 months of production. At 15 years is about 12.26 airplanes per year. If production is reduced by 25%, that is 135 aircraft for Europe (Malaysia will still get all 4 of theirs), which over 10 years is just 13.5 aircraft per year, and over 15 years is 9 aircraft built per year. If the C-17 production is just hanging on at 12-15 airplanes per year, as some said, then wouldn't that also be true for the A-400M that is not a 10 year, 184 airplane production?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
You and Keesje both like using outdated sources for pricing the C-17.

Unless you can provide us with the 2009 Department of Defense Acquisition Report for the C-17, the 2008 numbers are as recent as they get, it reflects the actual price paid.

What Congress budgets and what the DoD spends more often than not is not the same.

Like I said, there were a few things in your link you didn't read.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):
EADS is correct about political interference. I've always maintained that EADS will get everything they demand from the member governments--even Germany. This article in Der Spiegel has highlighted severe "challenges" coping with the dollar/euro exchange rate. More job losses simply won't be tolerated by the voters. The governments will cave in to EADS' demands. However, another five billion euros won't establish a "ceiling"; more likely a "floor". Costs will continue to rise. I maintain that each A400M will cost more than a C-17 when this thing enters squadron service.

Correct. I believe the term is EADS has Europe by the balls here.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 209):
I think in reality the Europeans have a problem with a A400M cost rise that still keeps it way, way below C-17 cost price.

keesje, you have not thought in reality in years. You really need to get that checked out.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 209):
I have seen cost estimations of the F22, C-17, B2, V22. No way in h.ll could you such huge cost overruns get approved - continued in Europe, no way.

Yes, all of them would have been built, if built in Europe by EADS. All they have to say is, we are going to have to aly off your voters.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 212):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
Use recent sources like TopBoom

Like 1995?



Quoting NorCal (Reply 202):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 196):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

This document is dated 7 October 2009, so it is still reasonably current.

That is still a USAF price of about $225M per airplane, and another $25M for the spares and maintenance (depot) "package".



Quoting NorCal (Reply 215):
Umm....no , like 2009

Astuteman, the 1995 price I quoted was for C-17 #41 and on costs $172M. The $225M is the current flyaway price.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 216):
See reply 94 for extensive references. Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support. and it won't go away

There you go again. The $400M per airplane included spares, training, simulators, and scheduling, plus the airplane. Canada got an excellent deal, even Canada thinks so.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-10 16:47:36 and read 29292 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
There you go again. The $400M per airplane included spares, training, simulators, and scheduling, plus the airplane. Canada got an excellent deal, even Canada thinks so.

Nah, thats in the :

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

 Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: JBirdAV8r
Posted 2009-12-10 16:58:08 and read 29271 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 219):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
There you go again. The $400M per airplane included spares, training, simulators, and scheduling, plus the airplane. Canada got an excellent deal, even Canada thinks so.

Nah, thats in the :

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

I see you pandering about with your figures from one indirect source, but precisely what evidence beyond that article do you have to indicate that $1.6B was SOLELY acquisition cost of the aircraft, and what's the precise breakdown of the other $1.6B? Seems to me you don't really have a valid argument against KC135 without being more specific... scratchchin 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2009-12-10 19:59:35 and read 29218 times.

Well, it's 5:00 am, D-day...

LEZL shows CAVOK with a pretty good forecast.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-10 20:26:49 and read 29205 times.



Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 220):
Seems to me you don't really have a valid argument against KC135 without being more specific...

No he never has anything specific about [b] airframe costs, /b] as reply 94 shows he always tries to add in the extras to turn the C-17 into a $300 million + aircraft. His arguments don't hold up under scrutiny but that doesn't stop him for endlessly repeating them.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-12-10 22:12:32 and read 29166 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 214):
will the resulting program with the small number of frames have any hope of break even?

It seems Germany is holding out for the plane with all the bells and whistles, whereas the others are more willing to let functionality slide.

That sounds to have the makings of an excellent compromise - NOT! Oh dear, think I will watch the FF and then not pay any attention until the sort the damned thing out. I guess if they can make the 380 work, they should manage a small ute???

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-10 23:01:37 and read 29160 times.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 205):
I simply point out how you and Keesje include all the bonus items in the C-17 vs. just the airframe cost of the A400M

B/S I have not done that.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 205):
Congress provides the money to the DoD. The DoD doesn't have any money till congress gives it to them. If they provide $674 million to buy 3 airframes in 2009 then simple math tells us that the airframe costs roughly $225 million. Again your own link has "average procurement cost of the C-17." We don't care what the average is we care what it costs today.

That is how much "new" money congress is appropriating, it does not mean that no money is not already in the kitty, or how much they will spend.

The ONLY way to find out how much each aircraft costs is to look at what the DoD PAID for them in the Acquisition Report which normally is reported after the financial year is over. Congress may appropriate 5 million, and they have 300 million left over from the previous year, using your logic the price of a C-17 is 5 million.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
It also say, in that same graph;

Look at where the footnotes are next the figures, note b refers to the C-5, not C-17.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
Consequently, some may question whether it is appropriate to compare these costs to those incurred by acquisitions included in annual Air Force budgets.

You have a go at me for not reading the report, then you post a statement which supports exactly what I am saying, you cannot go off budget figures to find out what they actually cost, budget -> future guess, acquisition report -> actual amount paid in the past.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 221):

LEZL shows CAVOK with a pretty good forecast.

Not long to go now, the Wx still looks good today for first flight.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: BA0284
Posted 2009-12-11 00:03:55 and read 29114 times.

Dont know if this has been posted, but the live stream on the Airbus Military website is currently up and running

http://www.airbus.com/en/A400M/

BA0284

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EPA001
Posted 2009-12-11 01:36:55 and read 29181 times.



Quoting BA0284 (Reply 225):
Dont know if this has been posted, but the live stream on the Airbus Military website is currently up and running

http://www.airbus.com/en/A400M/

The live-feed is now ended. "Rejoin us for landing" is what the site is stating.  Smile Which means she is successfully airborne.  Smile A great moment in this A400M program, even though it is well over two years behind schedule.  Sad

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Aesma
Posted 2009-12-11 01:48:06 and read 29133 times.

About the C17, what it costs to buy a new one is the marginal cost. The average cost can be very different, and I doubt taxpayers (of any country) can really know that number for any military aircraft (or ballistic missile, carrier, submarine, whatever).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-11 02:17:22 and read 29067 times.

The aircraft is airborne. I want to offer my congratulations before heading to work! Come what may, first flight is a tremendous achievement.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...brates-as-a400m-gets-airborne.html

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-11 04:06:29 and read 28925 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 228):
The aircraft is airborne. I want to offer my congratulations before heading to work! Come what may, first flight is a tremendous achievement.

Indeed! Bon voyage!  champagne 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Aesma
Posted 2009-12-11 04:18:12 and read 28901 times.

It seems she likes it so much she doesn't want to come back !

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Jambrain
Posted 2009-12-11 07:02:06 and read 28735 times.

Video of FF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX-kIUYRyDk

Lets hope the other bird with RR power can make it 4 first flights in 1 quarter !!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-11 07:46:47 and read 28608 times.

I like the nickname "Grizzly" apperently used by incrowd,. It looks a bit like a Grizzly, fat, grey, black nose, big feet/shoulders.. Should we adapt / push it?

[Edited 2009-12-11 08:13:02 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-11 07:54:38 and read 28591 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 219):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
There you go again. The $400M per airplane included spares, training, simulators, and scheduling, plus the airplane. Canada got an excellent deal, even Canada thinks so.

Nah, thats in the :

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.



Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 220):
I see you pandering about with your figures from one indirect source, but precisely what evidence beyond that article do you have to indicate that $1.6B was SOLELY acquisition cost of the aircraft, and what's the precise breakdown of the other $1.6B? Seems to me you don't really have a valid argument against KC135 without being more specific...

Unlike the RAAF and RAF contracts, Canada went with two seperate contracts, one for the package and a seperate one for most maintenance, including the first 4-5 depot visits.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 222):
No he never has anything specific about [b] airframe costs, /b] as reply 94 shows he always tries to add in the extras to turn the C-17 into a $300 million + aircraft. His arguments don't hold up under scrutiny but that doesn't stop him for endlessly repeating them.

Here is Keesje's reply #94, in its entirirty;

Quoting Keesje (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too.

If the A400M is to compete with the A400M (which it doesn't IMO) we are talking export price. I have summed up many orders many times and they point north of $ 300 million. Feel free to ignore again.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...2388/



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices for international sales are way out in left field, too.

KC135TopBoom I quoted the prices international and domestic for the C-17 many times with many sources. Somehow you keep forgetting them.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pol...022609_fy10_topline_weapons_costs/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
He does not understand the sales to many countries often, but not always, include several packages for training, maintenance, spares, etc

A C-17 costed $172 million, 12 years ago.

The acquisition community could hardly endure these headlines and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer of 1995 cost savings brought down the cost of the C-17 to $172 million in "flyaway cost" per aircraft in constant 1995 dollars].
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm

Prices paid in the years after by the USAF:

1997 : 275 million / ac
1998 : 255 million / ac
1999 : 230 million / ac
2000 : 206 million / ac
2001 : 268 million / ac

https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/843

"A defense policy bill passed by Congress authorized $2.1 billion for six more C-17s, but the appropriations bill did not provide any funding, which means lawmakers will have to address any funding issues when they consider the war spending request, expected in spring 2009."
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssA...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

-> $350M a ship

C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive – the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft. Constant US government pressure reduced that price slightly but these numbers vary depending on what is being counted. DND originally estimated the cost of 6 C-17s at $1-to-$1.6B.[3] But the cost given for the new Airlift Capability Program-Strategic is $3.4B for only 4 C-17s (or US$762.5M each) due to a 20 year maintenance deal. Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.
http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm

-> $330M a ship

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency today notified Congress of a possible $2 billion sale of C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft and related equipment to Australia.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93258,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

-> $500M a ship

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/


Since the last USAF prices inflation has been high as you know. Recent orders, qoutes all point in a direction that is clear to (almost) everyone. Saying the price for the C-17 has tumbled in the last 8 yrs ago is a.. choice.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
If we converted the 1995 USAF price per C-17 ($172M US is equil to 104.92M Euros today), it compares directly to the 2005-2009 price of the A-400M (108M Euros for the basic version), without adjustments for inflation.

KC135Topboom, you blame for using 1-2 year old sources on A400M long term market forecasts. Now just look at what you are claiming. It's non-sense.

US inflation has been around 3% for the last 15 yrs. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2008/images/0811.h2.jpg

Something that costed $268m in 2001 costs $350m in 2010 based on inflation alone in the US.



I must say I'm getting a bit tired of stating & backing up endlessly what seems obvious to me. The C17 and A400M are not only in a different payload class, but also in a different price class..

I am tired of it too. I agree the C-17 and A-400M are in different classes. But I also agree the domestic flyaway price is nearly indentical.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 205):
I simply point out how you and Keesje include all the bonus items in the C-17 vs. just the airframe cost of the A400M

B/S I have not done that.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 205):
Congress provides the money to the DoD. The DoD doesn't have any money till congress gives it to them. If they provide $674 million to buy 3 airframes in 2009 then simple math tells us that the airframe costs roughly $225 million. Again your own link has "average procurement cost of the C-17." We don't care what the average is we care what it costs today.

That is how much "new" money congress is appropriating, it does not mean that no money is not already in the kitty, or how much they will spend.

The ONLY way to find out how much each aircraft costs is to look at what the DoD PAID for them in the Acquisition Report which normally is reported after the financial year is over. Congress may appropriate 5 million, and they have 300 million left over from the previous year, using your logic the price of a C-17 is 5 million.

Where does it say that? How is the USAF going to have money in a "kitty" for C-17 procurment unless they are saving money from each delivered C-17?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
It also say, in that same graph;

Look at where the footnotes are next the figures, note b refers to the C-5, not C-17.

Ahh, no. note b refers to the C-17, not the C-5. Here are both notes, again;

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
"a. Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Department of Defense OUSD (AT&L). Defense Acquisition
Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR). C-17A, C-5AMP, C-5RERP.
b. These costs have and will likely fluctuate over time. The procurement cost of future C-17s will likely be lower than the average, as learning increases and fixed costs are amortized over a longer production run."



Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
Consequently, some may question whether it is appropriate to compare these costs to those incurred by acquisitions included in annual Air Force budgets.

You have a go at me for not reading the report, then you post a statement which supports exactly what I am saying, you cannot go off budget figures to find out what they actually cost, budget -> future guess, acquisition report -> actual amount paid in the past.

Nice try at selecting out of context written statements. Here is the entire paragraph, including your selected quote.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
"Making an “apples-to-apples” comparison of C-5 and C-17 costs is complicated. The scope and time frame considered (e.g., flyaway cost, procurement cost, life-cycle cost), rate of production assumed, and procurement approach used (e.g., multi-year, annual, or supplemental procurement) all affect comparisons. For
example, it is estimated 10 C-17s procured via annual congressional earmark cost
approximately $20 million more per aircraft than C-17s procured via multiyear
contracts.74 Consequently, some may question whether it is appropriate to compare
these costs to those incurred by acquisitions included in annual Air Force budgets.
Table 3 summarizes some factors to consider when comparing costs of C-5
modernization with C-17 procurement."

You also forgot to include this tid bid of information;

"Analysis was based on C-17 procurement of 135 aircraft, compared
with the 190-aircraft program of record today."

Then there is also this in the same report pricing the C-17 at just over $253M each.

"Proponents of C-17 acquisition have suggested that retiring some C-5s early
could make funds available for additional C-17s. However, these funds do not “line
up” in the DOD budget. C-5 RERP procurement funds for FY2008 are only $253
million — just less than the cost of a single C-17."



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 228):
The aircraft is airborne. I want to offer my congratulations before heading to work! Come what may, first flight is a tremendous achievement.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Congradulations to EADS and Europe and the A-400M team.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-11 08:35:55 and read 28508 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 232):
I like the nickname "Grizzly" apperently used by incrowd,. It looks a bit like a Grizzly, fat, grey, black nose, big feet/shoulders.. Should we adapt / push it?

Actually when I saw it I thought more of a Panda than a Grizzly...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-11 09:57:50 and read 28431 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 232):
I like the nickname "Grizzly" apperently used by incrowd,. It looks a bit like a Grizzly, fat, grey, black nose, big feet/shoulders.. Should we adapt / push it?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 234):
Actually when I saw it I thought more of a Panda than a Grizzly...

I think it is more like the Sloth Bear than a Grizzly (Brown) Bear or a Panda Bear.

"Adult sloth bears may travel in pairs, with the males being gentle with cubs. They may fight for food. They walk in a slow, shambling motion, with their feet being set down in a noisy, flapping motion. They are capable of galloping faster than running humans.[11] Although they appear slow and clumsy, sloth bears are excellent climbers. They climb to feed and rest, though not to escape enemies, as they prefer to stand their ground."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth_Bear

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2009-12-11 10:06:02 and read 28409 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
That is how much "new" money congress is appropriating, it does not mean that no money is not already in the kitty, or how much they will spend.

The ONLY way to find out how much each aircraft costs is to look at what the DoD PAID for them in the Acquisition Report which normally is reported after the financial year is over. Congress may appropriate 5 million, and they have 300 million left over from the previous year, using your logic the price of a C-17 is 5 million.

Do you have any evidence that the USAF is leaving money in the bank? Doesn't pass the common sense test considering there are a lot of programs the USAF would like money for. Off the top of my head I can come up with KC-X, C-17, F-22 and the F-35.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
B/S I have not done that

You skew the numbers, like how you left out the fact that analysis was based off of 135 aircraft instead of 190

Quoting Keesje (Reply 232):
I like the nickname "Grizzly" apperently used by incrowd,. It looks a bit like a Grizzly, fat, grey, black nose, big feet/shoulders.. Should we adapt / push it?

How about the Kodiak? Those are the biggest of all the Grizzlies and similar in size to Polar bears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodiak_bears

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Tommytoyz
Posted 2009-12-11 11:07:42 and read 28316 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
The ONLY way to find out how much each aircraft costs is to look at what the DoD PAID for them in the Acquisition Report which normally is reported after the financial year is over. Congress may appropriate 5 million, and they have 300 million left over from the previous year, using your logic the price of a C-17 is 5 million.

That's not how it works. The DOD does not have a slush fund to hold or spend money in the manner that you describe. I'm not going to get into the details here, as this is an aviation enthusiast forum.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: GDB
Posted 2009-12-11 11:44:45 and read 28238 times.

Well, they got there in the end!
Or as a British commentator said of the first take off with another controversial European aerospace project 40 years ago (also somewhat delayed), she flies!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-11 14:07:57 and read 28107 times.



Quoting GDB (Reply 238):
as a British commentator said of the first take off with another controversial European aerospace project 40 years ago (also somewhat delayed), she flies!

 bigthumbsup  to EADS.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-11 23:51:14 and read 27846 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 233):

Where does it say that? How is the USAF going to have money in a "kitty" for C-17 procurment unless they are saving money from each delivered C-17?

It does not say that, nor does it say what you are claiming, the only way to know what was spent is by looking at the C-17 acquisition report after the financial year is over.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 233):

Ahh, no. note b refers to the C-17, not the C-5. Here are both notes, again;

Intellectually dishonest



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 233):

Nice try at selecting out of context written statements. Here is the entire paragraph, including your selected quote.

I didn't "try" anything, that is the same paragraph you posted in reply 218, I quoted YOUR post.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 236):
Do you have any evidence that the USAF is leaving money in the bank?

The only way to know this is to look at the budget vs the acquisition report, it would not be the first time the DoD has padded their budgets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/10/15/AR2007101501768.html

All I do know is the 2008 acquisition report has the 190 aircraft fleet costing 62,306.7 million, the same size fleet in the 2007 budget was $62,462.6 million, a difference of 155.9 million.

This demonstrates that what is budgeted for, and what is spent is not the same.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=10714
http://www.defense.gov/news/d20080818sar.pdf

Quoting NorCal (Reply 236):
Doesn't pass the common sense test considering there are a lot of programs the USAF would like money for. Off the top of my head I can come up with KC-X, C-17, F-22 and the F-35.

The USAF pulled 3 billion out of the KC-X budget and put it into the KC-135 maintenance budget.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 236):
You skew the numbers, like how you left out the fact that analysis was based off of 135 aircraft instead of 190

I did not skew the numbers at all, I never mentioned "135" or "190", all I repeated was that the average purchase price for the C-17 is 280 million.

It is a statement of fact from the CRS report I linked, it not my calculation. If you have a problem with the calculation, pass your comments onto William Knight and Christopher Bolkcom who compiled that report.

I do not think their numbers fail the reasonable test in my view. The total program cost from the 2008 acquisition report was $62,306.7 million for 190 airframes, that is an average of 327.93 million per airframe. Naturally that includes elements of spares, support, training, development etc, the average cost stated of 280 million per airframe, and therefore 47.93 million (9106.7 million over 190 aircraft, or around 20% of the airframe cost) for an ancillary C-17 related items does not seem that unreasonable.

If one were to believe the average cost as being closer to 200 million as some are suggesting, that would mean the ancillary C-17 related items would be closer to 130 million per airframe on average (around 65% above the airframe cost) , and I find that unreasonable.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Wvsuperhornet
Posted 2009-12-12 00:49:36 and read 27763 times.

I wouldn't be superised to see the US purchase some of these aircraft when the c130 comes up for replacement. During th Bush administration the pentagon has changed the rules for purchasing foreign aircraft probably for the specific purposes of the new refueling tankers, but if this aircraft once it gets in to production (and from what i have seen thats not a garantee by any means) but if NATO partners buy enough of them and the US likes them I wouldn't be superised to see some eventually in the US inventory. Will they replace the whole fleet of C130's with them very doubtfull I doubt the US airforce would complain if they supplemented with more C-17's to keep most of the purchase American.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-12 04:16:20 and read 27619 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 240):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 233):

Ahh, no. note b refers to the C-17, not the C-5. Here are both notes, again;

Intellectually dishonest

I was talking about what you said in reply #224. Now you have turned around your statement. Was #224 a typo?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 224):
Look at where the footnotes are next the figures, note b refers to the C-5, not C-17.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 240):
I didn't "try" anything, that is the same paragraph you posted in reply 218, I quoted YOUR post.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
You also forgot to include this tid bid of information;

"Analysis was based on C-17 procurement of 135 aircraft, compared
with the 190-aircraft program of record today."

Then there is also this in the same report pricing the C-17 at just over $253M each.

"Proponents of C-17 acquisition have suggested that retiring some C-5s early
could make funds available for additional C-17s. However, these funds do not “line
up” in the DOD budget. C-5 RERP procurement funds for FY2008 are only $253
million — just less than the cost of a single C-17."

Which you did not include or explain, from your opinion, in your reply #224.

Your link from reply #240;

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=10714

Here is the whole C-17 papragraph.

C-17A – Program costs increased by $2,909.9 million (+4.9 percent) from $59,552.7 million to $62,462.6 million, due primarily to an increase of 10 aircraft from 180 to 190 aircraft (+$2,093.9 million) and revised peculiar support estimates (+$618.5 million). There were also Congressional adds in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) (+$227.5 million), higher estimates for continuing development (+$126.0 million), and an extension of the development program out to fiscal year 2012-2013 (+$450.1 million). These increases were partially offset by revised project estimates and Air Mobility Command priorities (-$364.0 million) and a revised production shutdown estimate (-$271.2 million).

Those 10 aircraft come out to an average cost of $209.39M. You did point out your estimates included some of the "extras".

Quoting Zeke (Reply 240):
http://www.defense.gov/news/d20080818sar.pdf

That chart says production started in 1996, clearly wrong. The first C-17 (T-1) was budgeted in 1989, and five prduction C-17s (P-1 through P-5) were budgeted in 1990, full production began in 1991. First flight of T-1 was 15 Sept. 1991, and P-1 through P-5 joined the flight test program in 1992.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 240):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 236):
Doesn't pass the common sense test considering there are a lot of programs the USAF would like money for. Off the top of my head I can come up with KC-X, C-17, F-22 and the F-35.

The USAF pulled 3 billion out of the KC-X budget and put it into the KC-135 maintenance budget.

With the approval of the US Congress, otherwise they could not do that.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 240):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 236):
You skew the numbers, like how you left out the fact that analysis was based off of 135 aircraft instead of 190

I did not skew the numbers at all, I never mentioned "135" or "190", all I repeated was that the average purchase price for the C-17 is 280 million.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 240):
I do not think their numbers fail the reasonable test in my view. The total program cost from the 2008 acquisition report was $62,306.7 million for 190 airframes, that is an average of 327.93 million per airframe. Naturally that includes elements of spares, support, training, development etc, the average cost stated of 280 million per airframe, and therefore 47.93 million (9106.7 million over 190 aircraft, or around 20% of the airframe cost) for an ancillary C-17 related items does not seem that unreasonable.

Zeke, you need to deduct the $22B developement costs. I have never included the $20B Euro (now $25B Euro?) developement costs for the A-400M. I always used the contract prices of the A-400M, then added the 25% or 30% EADS is now asking for in the price of each airplane. But, for the C-17 the costs, minus the $22B developement would be $40.306B, making an average cost of about $212.1M per C-17, including the very high costs of the first 40 airplanes bought.

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 241):
I wouldn't be superised to see the US purchase some of these aircraft when the c130 comes up for replacement.

Right now, I would be surprised if the US did buy the A-400M. We have, or will have 4 different sized cargo aircraft now, the C-27J, C-130, C-17, and C-5. Should the US need another cargo airplane that fits between the C-130 and C-17, there is always the C-130X program (the so called fat C-130) that LM is looking at. That airplane would compete directly with the A-400M, should it ever leave the paper it is now on.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-12-12 08:27:34 and read 27467 times.

TopBoom,
I think you'll find that the contract was €20B for Development and production of 180 A400M, so that equates to 111M per A400M.

There are reports that EADS would like another €5B due to development delays etc. I don't think that I have seen a split of these costs between Development and Production, so comparing unit cost(C-17A) to unit cost( including development) is a bit strange. It would be far better to compare the total programme cost of the C-17A( for say 120 or 180) to the Estimated Total programme cost for the A400M for the 180.

Personally I think this is a stupid comparison anyway, they are different aircraft doing different jobs, and developed a generation apart. I'm sure that you could prove that the C-141 should never been retired as the C-17A was too expensive and has never delivered what it promised( Austere Airfield ops, Short fields, LAPES shortfall etc), but 15 years later the C-17A is seen as the best thing since sliced bread.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-12 15:19:52 and read 27295 times.



Quoting Overcast (Reply 243):
I'm sure that you could prove that the C-141 should never been retired as the C-17A was too expensive and has never delivered what it promised( Austere Airfield ops, Short fields, LAPES shortfall etc), but 15 years later the C-17A is seen as the best thing since sliced bread

The C-141s were worn out. Yes, they could have been rebuilt, but the big selling point of the C-17 over reworked C-141s was the outsized cargo issue. The C-141 could not carry outsized cargo, it was a NB airplane.

BTW, the C-17 does do austere airfields short field ops, and LAPES (LAPES is mostly done by C-130). The C-17 can also do every mission the C-141 could do, and more.

I don't know about the sliced bread comparision, though. That was a major technoligical break through.  duck   duck   duck 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-13 20:41:45 and read 26966 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 242):
That chart says production started in 1996, clearly wrong. The first C-17 (T-1) was budgeted in 1989, and five prduction C-17s (P-1 through P-5) were budgeted in 1990, full production began in 1991. First flight of T-1 was 15 Sept. 1991, and P-1 through P-5 joined the flight test program in 1992.

The 1996 is the base year that is used for the accounting, just like the F-35 is reported in 2002 dollars.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 242):
Zeke, you need to deduct the $22B developement costs.

No, you only need to look at what the customer is paying.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 242):
I always used the contract prices of the A-400M, then added the 25% or 30% EADS is now asking for in the price of each airplane.

What is the contract price of an A400M ? I am yet to seen a raw figure for the airframe in public. South Africa was reported at 837 million euros for 8 frames, but that was for the total package including the extras which you do not want to include on the C-17.

Quoting Overcast (Reply 243):
There are reports that EADS would like another %u20AC5B due to development delays etc. I don't think that I have seen a split of these costs between Development and Production, so comparing unit cost(C-17A) to unit cost( including development) is a bit strange. It would be far better to compare the total programme cost of the C-17A( for say 120 or 180) to the Estimated Total programme cost for the A400M for the 180.

I do not agree, the program cost for the manufacturer is not indicative of the cost to the customer. Wedgetail is a classic example of that, Boeing has an additional charge for over 500 million on that for being late.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 244):
Yes, they could have been rebuilt, but the big selling point of the C-17 over reworked C-141s was the outsized cargo issue.

The C-17 does more transportation of regular pallets/troops than it does outsize work.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 244):
The C-17 can also do every mission the C-141 could do, and more.

Doesn't the C-17 carry fewer troops or paratroops ?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-12-13 23:16:08 and read 26928 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 244):
The C-141 could not carry outsized cargo, it was a NB airplan

Don't know how you could say that KC, they could just as easily have put a new much wider body on it. Quite a simple mod once you figure out how to fix the wings on and plenty of experience in that NOW.  angel 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-14 07:21:06 and read 26741 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 246):
Quite a simple mod once you figure out how to fix the wings on and plenty of experience in that NOW.

The C-141B had already been stretched length-wise. Are you talking about stretching its width and/or height? (outsize is tall, too. Think of an H-47) Doesn't sound so simple. Who has plenty of experience making narrow body aircraft wider and/or taller? Besides the Dreamlifter and Super Guppies, I can't think of any. Also, the -141s retired with around 50,000 hrs on the frame, they were built for far less than that.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-14 09:18:57 and read 26663 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 247):
Also, the -141s retired with around 50,000 hrs on the frame, they were built for far less than that.

I wonder why they did the extensive glass cockpit upgrade for the C-141C's for such a short period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6e/C-141C_Glass_Cockpit_Upgrade.JPEG/800px-C-141C_Glass_Cockpit_Upgrade.JPEG

Wing cracks and other fatigue stresses were discovered, far short of the projected airframe hour limits.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-14 11:30:54 and read 26558 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 248):
I wonder why they did the extensive glass cockpit upgrade for the C-141C's for such a short period.

And it seems that some C-5As will be AMP'd and shortly thereafter retired, no?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2009-12-14 11:40:37 and read 26553 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 245):
837 million euros for 8 frames, but that was for the total package including the extras which you do not want to include on the C-17.

That seems way too low Zeke. I'm not saying you are wrong, however, I am saying that South Africa paid 104.6M Euros/A400M?? How in the world could Airbus possibly sell that plane for that cheap??

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-12-14 12:11:37 and read 26666 times.



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 250):
That seems way too low Zeke. I'm not saying you are wrong, however, I am saying that South Africa paid 104.6M Euros/A400M?? How in the world could Airbus possibly sell that plane for that cheap??

104.6M Euros is not far off 20B Euros divided by 180 units. This was the contracted cost to develop and produce the 180 A400Ms for the launch customers, plus wasn't SA going to join in the development to some extent, so were probably offered the same deal.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-14 12:18:11 and read 26653 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 245):
South Africa was reported at 837 million euros for 8 frames, but that was for the total package including the extras which you do not want to include on the C-17.

Really, then why was the SA govt spokeman quoting numbers 4x to 6x higher?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quote:
For those trying to figure out costs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

Not sure what to make of this, but:

8 / $6.2B = $775M per A-400M

8 / $3.9B = $475M per A-400M

No matter how you slice it, it's clearly no longer half a C-17 at half the cost.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Overcast
Posted 2009-12-14 13:03:42 and read 26626 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 252):
Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

I think you will find that these are not the costs of purchase but what they estimated for purchase and use over a number of years(probably inflated somehat to justify the cancellation)

How you can imagine that the europeans have contracted at just over 100M Euro per unit for Development and production, would escalate to $775M for SA under the same conditions I'm not sure.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-14 13:07:51 and read 26626 times.



Quoting Overcast (Reply 253):

How you can imagine that the europeans have contracted at just over 100M Euro per unit for Development and production, would escalate to $775M for SA under the same conditions I'm not sure.

I couldn't imagine, that's why I asked.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A342
Posted 2009-12-14 14:47:16 and read 26539 times.

Coming back to the topic, the A400M's future prospects, I do not share the scepticism which seems quite prevalent in this thread.


Additional sales could come from:

Sweden (looking for a tactical tanker-transport) and Switzerland (a small fleet mainly for humanitarian missions) - a total of maybe ten aircraft

Netherlands - about five

Portugal might be good for maybe five

Turkey could easily double its current order, giving an additional ten

Despite its huge debts, Greece maintains a relitively large air force - again ~10 aircraft

Morocco, Libya and Egypt - a total of some 30 aircraft (Algeria seems to prefer Russian products)

Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia - some 30 aircraft

Oman, Qatar and the UAE have ordered the C-130J, the latter two also the C-17, yet I don't think the A400M is out of the question

Malaysia could order more, maybe six

Singapore, about 10

South Korea will also have to replace its older C-130s, but I guess will go for American aircraft

A sale to Taiwan would have strong political implications, so that's unlikely

New Zealand might have a requirement in the future, but not that likely


So I've got some 116 potential sales. Even if half that number materializes, it will be a healthy boost to the A400M.


A342

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-14 15:47:55 and read 26513 times.



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 250):
That seems way too low Zeke. I'm not saying you are wrong, however, I am saying that South Africa paid 104.6M Euros/A400M??

South Africa only paid a small deposit, they never really paid much at all.

Quote:
Government is pleased to announce that it has accepted an invitation from Airbus Military for South Africa to participate in the A400M multi-role mission transport aircraft design and manufacture programme. In return, the Government has committed to procure and take delivery of between 8 and 14 aircraft as the programme matures between 2010 and 2014. The cost of 8 aircraft would be Euros 837 million.

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2004/04121009151003.htm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 252):
Really, then why was the SA govt spokeman quoting numbers 4x to 6x higher?

The R47 billion stated by the CEO of ARMSCOR included estimates for the full maintenance and life-cycle cost of the eight aircraft over 30+ years, plus spare parts, retention of skills, plus the cost of Il-76 charters for six years to 2016.

Quote:
Some clarity arrived over the weekend when Independent Group newspapers quoted Armscor's general manager of acquisitions Sipho Mkwanazi as saying the R47 billion included estimates for the full maintenance and life-cycle cost of the eight aircraft (over at least 30 years), "spare parts, retention of skills and the SA National Defence Force having to pay for private freight charters for six years (to 2016) while it waits for delivery."

But why did Thomo not make this clear at the hearing? There is obviously a huge difference between the lifetime or total cost of ownership (TCO) of any item of machinery and the acquisition price.

As a TCO price, amortised over 30 or 40 years, R47 billion may be entirely reasonable. How much, for example, have the Lockheed Martin C130BZ aircraft cost SA in spares, training, maintenance and upgrade since being delivered in January 1963? As it now stands, the C130 will at least serve 53 years with the SAAF. Compare that with the lifespan of the average car...

from http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...ntent&task=view&id=4694&Itemid=386

It was never just for the cost of the base airframes.

My understanding is that the ARMSCOR CEO was suspended not long after making those statements.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-14 15:57:38 and read 26513 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 245):
Wedgetail is a classic example of that, Boeing has an additional charge for over 500 million on that for being late.

Yes, and that gets put back into the Wedgetail budget, and reduces it as far as the RAAF is concerned.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 245):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 244):
Yes, they could have been rebuilt, but the big selling point of the C-17 over reworked C-141s was the outsized cargo issue.

The C-17 does more transportation of regular pallets/troops than it does outsize work.

No, about the same (within about 10-15 troops and 2-3 pallets), remember the C-141 was a narrow bodied airplane and the C-17 is a wide but shorter bodied airplane.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 245):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 244):
The C-17 can also do every mission the C-141 could do, and more.

Doesn't the C-17 carry fewer troops or paratroops ?

Ya got me there, I don't know how many paratroopers either the C-17 or C-141 carries.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 246):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 244):
The C-141 could not carry outsized cargo, it was a NB airplan

Don't know how you could say that KC, they could just as easily have put a new much wider body on it. Quite a simple mod once you figure out how to fix the wings on and plenty of experience in that NOW.

The C-141A was streched some 32' total (one plug before the wing and one aft of the wing) to become the C-141B (air refueling was also added). In the 1980s, the C-5B was in production during the time the C-141 was streched, so there would not have been a need (then) for another military wide body cargo aircraft. Of course, since then we have had two wars in the gulf and one in Afghanistan, so airlift requirements are different today.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 250):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 245):
837 million euros for 8 frames, but that was for the total package including the extras which you do not want to include on the C-17.

That seems way too low Zeke. I'm not saying you are wrong, however, I am saying that South Africa paid 104.6M Euros/A400M?? How in the world could Airbus possibly sell that plane for that cheap??

The original total cost to the SAAF for the 8 A-400Ms was (according to South Africa) R 17B (about $2B US), and increased to about R 40B (about $5B US). At the original price per aircraft, with the package it was some $250M US, and increased to some $625M US. I have scene other prices for (origiinal costs ) $475M US per airplane and package, and (inflated costs) $775M per airplane and package.

"Then on 3 April 2009 the South African Air Force announced that it would start considering alternatives to the A400M due to postponed production and increased cost.[17] On 5 November 2009 the government announced it was cancelling the order citing increased cost and delays in delivery.[6] A government spokesman claimed that the cost had escalated to R 40 billion (approximately $5 billion) from R 17 billion (approximately $2 billion) if they had gone ahead with the order."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-400M

Quoting A342 (Reply 255):
Coming back to the topic, the A400M's future prospects, I do not share the scepticism which seems quite prevalent in this thread.


Additional sales could come from:

I don't know. Each of the countries you suggest could order at the numbers you suggest, but I just see most countries having "sticker shock" once they see what the new price is going to have to be. But each country will also weight a potential A-400M buy, or increase in their current order, against the costs, benefits gained, potential off sets, and what other offers are available that could fit, almost fit, or exceed what they need (C-130J, C-130J-30, C-130X, C-17A, C-17A/ER), as well as the costs of the package needed with the sale of the aircraft.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2009-12-14 15:57:50 and read 26517 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 256):
South Africa only paid a small deposit, they never really paid much at all.

That explains it. Thank you Zeke.

Quoting A342 (Reply 255):
the A400M's future prospects, I do not share the scepticism which seems quite prevalent in this thread.

For the record, I think the A400M is a wonderful plane, and will fulfill a vital role for countries in need of airlifters. I wish Airbus and the A400M program well.

*Sidenote* I am not sure why people are comparing the A400M to the C-17...two different planes.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-14 16:54:35 and read 26485 times.



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 258):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 256):
South Africa only paid a small deposit, they never really paid much at all.

That explains it. Thank you Zeke.

Yeah, I think Zeke is right that all SA paid was the deposit, I believe they have asked for the deposit to be returned.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 258):
*Sidenote* I am not sure why people are comparing the A400M to the C-17...two different planes.

They are, I don't think we were comparing airplane capabilities, we were comparing the price.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-14 17:41:03 and read 26499 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 257):
Yes, and that gets put back into the Wedgetail budget, and reduces it as far as the RAAF is concerned.

How do you know that ? I have seen no evidence to suggest that Boeing actually paid the RAAF a cent, they put a charge on their books, but that is not the same as writing a cheque.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 257):
No, about the same (within about 10-15 troops and 2-3 pallets), remember the C-141 was a narrow bodied airplane and the C-17 is a wide but shorter bodied airplane.

The point I was making is that the majority of C-17 work does not involve out-sized cargo.

The C-141 carried 200 troops or 153 paratroops, also carried more people for aeromedical evacuation than the C-17 does. The C-17 also burns about 40-45% more fuel than a C-141.

USAF planning figures below for both types, they suggest the C-141 carries about 100 more troops than a C-17, not "10-15 troops" as you claim. Also in terms of pallets, the C-17 only carries more pallets if they are small enough to fit side by side (9 rows by 2 across), otherwise the C-141 actually carries more (one row of 13 vs one row of 9 on the C-17).




Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 257):

Ya got me there, I don't know how many paratroopers either the C-17 or C-141 carries.

C-141 153, C-17 102.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 257):

The original total cost to the SAAF for the 8 A-400Ms was (according to South Africa) R 17B (about $2B US),

It was 837 million euros, as per the official South African government link I posted above in reply 256. Wiki is a very poor source of such information, comments like you have posted normally come from cheerleaders who add to the content to fill their egos.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 256):
The cost of 8 aircraft would be Euros 837 million.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-14 22:51:45 and read 26425 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 248):
I wonder why they did the extensive glass cockpit upgrade for the C-141C's for such a short period.

I was a nav in -141s at the time. We were all kind of scratching our heads over that one. The C models all went to reserve and guard units.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-14 23:13:40 and read 26428 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 260):
Also in terms of pallets, the C-17 only carries more pallets if they are small enough to fit side by side (9 rows by 2 across), otherwise the C-141 actually carries more (one row of 13 vs one row of 9 on the C-17).

The C-17 can carry two rows of 463L pallets in a 9x2 configuration or one row in a 1x11 configuration.

All USAF pallets have the same dimensions: 108" x 88". So, if its pallets, the C-17 will always be able to carry more. I've carried a few non-standard pallets, such as a UPS or FedEx container, but that's very rare.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 260):
The point I was making is that the majority of C-17 work does not involve out-sized cargo.

Zeke, I've seen this before and I'm not sure where this information is coming from. I don't have exact figures I can post but there is A LOT of outsize cargo moving around theater right now, and it is mostly on C-17s. H-47Fs are being lifted directly into theater from the states. Various MRAPs are moving from the states and also from Iraq into Afg. While outsize cargo may not be a majority of work, it is a lot.

Here's a link: http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/McCaffrey_November2009.pdf look at pg 6-7 plus the entire article has loads of Afghan info.

2,830 MRAPs AIRLIFTED into Afghanistan in less than a year. I don't have a C-17/C-5/Antonov breakdown, but I'm willing to bet the majority were on C-17s.

BOTTOM LINE: Outsize cargo capability is used on C-17s in combat every day since OEF started.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-12-15 04:33:21 and read 26285 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 247):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 246):
Quite a simple mod once you figure out how to fix the wings on and plenty of experience in that NOW.

The C-141B had already been stretched length-wise. Are you talking about stretching its width and/or height? (outsize is tall, too. Think of an H-47) Doesn't sound so simple. Who has plenty of experience making narrow body aircraft wider and/or taller?

It was an ill-timed joke to confirm KC's suggestion that the C-141 would be rather difficult to adapt to take Scorpions for example. I did have in mind that B now has a bit of experience of the vagaries of attaching wings and so if you REALLY went overboard, perhaps with all their 787 experience they could affix the C-141 wings to a whole new body. But I was really trying to show it was more than unlikely.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: RedFlyer
Posted 2009-12-15 06:40:17 and read 26208 times.



Quoting A342 (Reply 255):
So I've got some 116 potential sales. Even if half that number materializes, it will be a healthy boost to the A400M.

I would add if the airplane puts all the delays and bad press behind it, and starts to perform to specs, just two additional customers for a handful of orders will make people sit up and take notice. At that point, I would imagine the USAF might even consider taking a look at the bird.

Anyway, we should all be quite happy right now. In the span of less than a week, two brand-new and high profile airplanes will have taken their first flight (assuming the 787 gets off the ground today). How often are we aviation enthusiasts privy to such thrilling events back-to-back?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-15 07:01:22 and read 26223 times.



Quoting A342 (Reply 255):
Coming back to the topic, the A400M's future prospects, I do not share the scepticism which seems quite prevalent in this thread.

Surely that's up to you, but some of us are having a very hard time seeing how the A400M will make it through its infancy in these very trying times.

On one hand, having seen the huge investment in facilities (and thus jobs) that Airbus has made, and after seeing the first flight, it seems impossible that Airbus and its customers won't see things through.

On the other hand, seeing what extraordinary measures the UK is going through to buy more Chinooks, one can see that the UK won't be sending a single extra farthing to Airbus for the A400M:

Quote:

The government is to buy 22 new Chinook helicopters but the defence secretary is to set out other cuts to fund them.

Bob Ainsworth is due to announce the closure of a military base - understood to be RAF Cottesmore in Rutland - and the loss of thousands of defence jobs.



Quote:

The Harriers based at RAF Cottesmore will move to RAF Wittering before being phased out of service altogether, earlier than planned.

The Tornado force based at RAF Lossiemouth, in Moray, and RAF Marham in Norfolk will also lose one squadron and it is thought parts of RAF Kinloss, also in Moray, could be mothballed.



Quote:

An extra C17 transport plane could also be on the cards.

But the money will have to come out of the Ministry of Defence's existing budget, which is already overspent.

This afternoon Mr Ainsworth is likely to announce cuts to the existing Harrier and Tornado fighter jet fleet, and a cutback of Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft.

Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8413135.stm

It's a damn awful time for Airbus to be looking for extra money. I wonder if Airbus will realize this and thus decide to be a lot more willing to put more of its own money into the project. That'd be one way for them to show they are confident in the long term future of the A400M.

I realize some aspects of the A400M fiasco are the fault of the customers (i.e. politicians). According to the French Senate report, the politicians insisted on the EPI engine and did not fund some risk reduction studies that Airbus wanted to do. On the other hand, the report says that Airbus itself miscalculated loads on the airframe and thus is presumably responsible for the weight issue.

I think Airbus thought dragging out the negotiations past the first flight was a good move. I think they felt that the first flight would put the A400M in a very favorable light. But I think they may have miscalculated. The longer they have drawn things out the more severe the economic troubles have become. I really have a hard time seeing how any of the EU governments are going to be able to give Airbus much if anything more for the A400M program. Yet we see DE in particular insisting that the A400M not lose any of its functionality. It's all very ugly, and seems to be getting uglier with time. Maybe Enders was right, maybe better to have an end with sorrows rather than a sorrow without end?

All of this means an extremely stressful infancy for the A400M. And yes, similar things could have been said of the C-17 but it had the good fortune of screwing up during the Reagan-era defense buildup and thus has made it past all those pains of infancy.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-16 14:42:01 and read 25786 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 262):
The C-17 can carry two rows of 463L pallets in a 9x2 configuration or one row in a 1x11 configuration.

I didnt know 11, never seen a loading diagram showning 11.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 262):
I've seen this before and I'm not sure where this information is coming from.

Seen information from AMC stating that, if I recally correctly it was used as part of the cargo justification for KC-X.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 262):
H-47Fs are being lifted directly into theater from the states. Various MRAPs are moving from the states and also from Iraq into Afg.

The USAF has a finite number of them, i would think you could move the whole CH-47 fleet in two C-17 fleet trips.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 262):
2,830 MRAPs AIRLIFTED into Afghanistan in less than a year. I don't have a C-17/C-5/Antonov breakdown, but I'm willing to bet the majority were on C-17s.

I have read that most go by sea from the US, 500 at a time on Navy RORO ships, maybe a lot of those trips are short inter theater hops.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 264):
I would add if the airplane puts all the delays and bad press behind it, and starts to perform to specs, just two additional customers for a handful of orders will make people sit up and take notice. At that point, I would imagine the USAF might even consider taking a look at the bird.

I agree, I could see the aircraft being used promptly by France into Afghanistan once delivered, it will allow them for non stop supply mission from France.

As for the first US customer, I had been thinking it maybe the USCG, not USAF that could operate them first. Its speed/range and low level terrain following and AAR would be ideal to replace the USCG HC-130H SAR/AAR aircraft.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 264):
How often are we aviation enthusiasts privy to such thrilling events back-to-back?

Not to forget the G650 and A330-200F last month.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 265):
make it through its infancy in these very trying times

That sounds like one of the Friday afternoon updates from CX management, when in reality loads and yields are up. We are presently in one the of the largest periods of high defense spending.

No doubt the aircraft needs to perform, time will tell.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-16 14:46:58 and read 25783 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 265):
but some of us are having a very hard time seeing how the A400M will make it through its infancy in these very trying times.

I still maintain that the governments involved will accede to almost all of EADS' demands. From what I've read in the media, the idea of buying fewer in the short to mid range, sounds like the way I suspect they'll go. Of course, there are 40 or so units unfunded in the"out years", but they won't dwell on that for now. The project is too important--politically--to kill. What politician will be the one to stand up and take credit for the lay off notices?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-12-16 17:33:53 and read 25727 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 266):
As for the first US customer, I had been thinking it maybe the USCG, not USAF that could operate them first. Its speed/range and low level terrain following and AAR would be ideal to replace the USCG HC-130H SAR/AAR aircraft

L

O

L

where is the coastguard going to get the money?

You seem to mistake the coast guard for an agency that sometime in the last 50 years has been able to buy what it wants instead of a cheaper (and ususaly bad) option.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Aesma
Posted 2009-12-16 17:35:18 and read 25734 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 247):
The C-141B had already been stretched length-wise. Are you talking about stretching its width and/or height? (outsize is tall, too. Think of an H-47) Doesn't sound so simple. Who has plenty of experience making narrow body aircraft wider and/or taller? Besides the Dreamlifter and Super Guppies, I can't think of any. Also, the -141s retired with around 50,000 hrs on the frame, they were built for far less than that.

Don't forget the Beluga !

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-17 07:17:21 and read 25618 times.



Quoting Aesma (Reply 269):
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 247):
The C-141B had already been stretched length-wise. Are you talking about stretching its width and/or height? (outsize is tall, too. Think of an H-47) Doesn't sound so simple. Who has plenty of experience making narrow body aircraft wider and/or taller? Besides the Dreamlifter and Super Guppies, I can't think of any. Also, the -141s retired with around 50,000 hrs on the frame, they were built for far less than that.

Don't forget the Beluga !

I don't see any of them as widly produced aircraft. The B-747BCF Dreamlifter, C/KC-97 Guppy/Super Guppy, and A-306F Belugas were all almost hand modified aircraft. There may be a slight chance for a few more A-306F Belugas and B-747BCF Dreamlifters built. But the entire fleets of Guppys, Super Guppys, Dreamlifters, and Belugas amounts to only a hand full of very customized airplanes.

Boeing may need a few more Dreamlifters to support the second B-787 line in SC, and Airbus might need 1-2 more Belugas to support an increase in A-380 production, as well as the bigger parts of the A-350 if production should suddenly ramp up.

I believe there are currently about 5 Belugas and 4 Dreamlifters. All the Guppys are gone now, and only about 4-5 Super Guppys remain, mostly supporting NASA.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-17 08:11:37 and read 25588 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 266):
That sounds like one of the Friday afternoon updates from CX management, when in reality loads and yields are up. We are presently in one the of the largest periods of high defense spending.

But that doesn't mean it's easy to get more money.

As we see, the UK is shifting around money like mad to get the funds they need to support their efforts in Afghanistan.

They are closing bases and retiring systems early, which, ironically, ends up costing money in the short term.

IMLTHO the UK won't be putting additional funds into the A400M program in the near future.

Do you agree or disagree?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 267):
I still maintain that the governments involved will accede to almost all of EADS' demands.

I think the program will live on, but both parties will be unhappy.

If Zeke will pardon more hyperbole, it'll be like a bad marriage where the couple is staying together for the "benefit" of the children.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 267):
From what I've read in the media, the idea of buying fewer in the short to mid range, sounds like the way I suspect they'll go. Of course, there are 40 or so units unfunded in the"out years", but they won't dwell on that for now.

I agree that's the most likely outcome, but EADS can't be too happy about it. It'll delay the receipt of funds that go towards retiring the program's debt, making the program more costly. Better than killing the program altogether, but still far from ideal.

I think EADS was thinking they would walk away with everything they wanted, but I think the current economic climate is making that outcome very unlikely.

We'll probably see some agreement over the original order get hammered out, and after these are built EADS will take a massive writeoff to get the development costs off the books and then price the planes based on the cost of production, yes, just like MDD did with the C-17.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 267):
The project is too important--politically--to kill. What politician will be the one to stand up and take credit for the lay off notices?

Yes, so the loveless marriage will continue. Hopefully the kids aren't too worse off for it, but I suspect they'll suffer too.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 270):
Boeing may need a few more Dreamlifters to support the second B-787 line in SC

Supposedly they will not need more, because all the parts made in SC won't need to be flown to the FAL. I don't know how big the parts made by Boeing in the Northwest are, but maybe they can go by truck or maybe they don't need a separate Dreamlifter flight to move them. Boeing's goal is to get non-union labor to build those parts so that they can continue to produce during a strike. Of course a strike will still cripple Boeing but at least they think this will give them more leverage. Clearly one of the points of all the subcontracting on the 787 program was to try to get away from union labor.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 270):
only about 4-5 Super Guppys remain, mostly supporting NASA

Yep, I saw a cool documentary where they flew a rocket from LM in Colorodo to Cape Kennedy in Florida. I think it was a USAF mission IIRC.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-17 08:51:54 and read 25595 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 271):
IMLTHO the UK won't be putting additional funds into the A400M program in the near future.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree, the RAF now has a big problem with funding just about everything. If they stay with the A-400M, with the money they still have for it, they will have to take the 25% production reduction, going from 25 firm orders to just 19 with the same amount of money avaiable. Other EU countries may be in the same type of money boat, and the boat is leaking. If that is true, the current 180 airplane order from Europe drops to just 135 airplanes, plus the 4 for Malaysa (139 total).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 271):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 270):
Boeing may need a few more Dreamlifters to support the second B-787 line in SC

Supposedly they will not need more, because all the parts made in SC won't need to be flown to the FAL. I don't know how big the parts made by Boeing in the Northwest are, but maybe they can go by truck or maybe they don't need a separate Dreamlifter flight to move them.

What about all the other big parts that fly in from Italy, Japan, and other places overseas? Can 4 Dreamlifters still support two full lines alone?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-17 09:29:16 and read 25587 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 271):
They are closing bases and retiring systems early, which, ironically, ends up costing money in the short term.

The UK have been doing this for years.

On the fast jet front, the Harrier, Tornado are on the way out (the jag is already gone), the Typhoon/J-35 combination will replace them. Tristar, VC-10, C-130 are on the way out being replaced with FSTA/A400M. Nimrod R1/MR2, GR4A being replaced with Nimrod MRA4/ASTOR.

I have lost count of the number of bases the UK MOD have closed in the past decade, this is not something new.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 271):
Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree, the A400M is not as expensive as a lot of people on here keep misquoting on purpose. They need the transport capability, this is further demonstrated this week with the purchase of another C-17.

The cost overruns on the A400M are nothing like the overruns that are on the F-35. If a program was in danger with the UK MOD, it would have to be the F-35. The UK could go with more Typhoons and the Rafale for the navy and save a big chunk of change and in my view a better solution and could be obtained sooner.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Francoflier
Posted 2009-12-17 22:18:39 and read 25414 times.

Here's an interesting blurb from Flightglobal:

Airbus Military test pilot Ed Strongman gives his impression of the A400M after its first flight:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rongman-describes-a400m-first.html

Second flight scheduled tomorrow (19th).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-18 05:05:09 and read 25312 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 272):
If that is true, the current 180 airplane order from Europe drops to just 135 airplanes, plus the 4 for Malaysa (139 total).

I can see the program moving forward at 139 airplanes.

As Lumberton is saying, I think they are looking for a solution (any solution?) that allows them to go forward now, and will deal with the "out years" when they come to them.

EADS's biggest worry is getting rid of the penalty clauses, and that's pretty much a given in my book. Their next biggest worry is to not lose too much money on the program. No one but them knows what 'too much' is, nor do we really know how far the customers will go to get the program back on track. I did see the French defense minister yesterday encouraging everyone to make a deal by the end of the year, so let's see what happens.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 272):
What about all the other big parts that fly in from Italy, Japan, and other places overseas? Can 4 Dreamlifters still support two full lines alone?

Well, as I understand it, the fleet was sized for the full production rate 12 frames/month all at KPAE. Now that some are being done at KCHS there is less flying involved (no Dreamliner flights for the stuff made at KCHS) so they should be fine. On the other hand, we've seen how good Boeing is at predicting things lately! Sad

Quoting Zeke (Reply 273):
The cost overruns on the A400M are nothing like the overruns that are on the F-35. If a program was in danger with the UK MOD, it would have to be the F-35. The UK could go with more Typhoons and the Rafale for the navy and save a big chunk of change and in my view a better solution and could be obtained sooner.

Very good point.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 274):
Airbus Military test pilot Ed Strongman gives his impression of the A400M after its first flight:

Very interesting - thanks for posting it!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-19 06:57:24 and read 25142 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 275):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 272):
If that is true, the current 180 airplane order from Europe drops to just 135 airplanes, plus the 4 for Malaysa (139 total).

I can see the program moving forward at 139 airplanes.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 275):
On the other hand, we've seen how good Boeing is at predicting things lately!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 273):
Disagree, the A400M is not as expensive as a lot of people on here keep misquoting on purpose. They need the transport capability, this is further demonstrated this week with the purchase of another C-17.

Perhaps, but the new C-17 purchases were not planned years ago, like the A-400M was.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 273):
The cost overruns on the A400M are nothing like the overruns that are on the F-35. If a program was in danger with the UK MOD, it would have to be the F-35.

I agree with that, You are right, the F-35A/C program is, right now at least, the most probibly the first to be cancelled because of costs overruns. The RAF did this back in the 1960s with the F-111K program, which replaced the TRS-2 program. Eventually they ended up with F-4s. But, that still doesn't mean that today's A-400M RAF program is completely safe from being cancelled.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 273):
On the fast jet front, the Harrier, Tornado are on the way out (the jag is already gone), the Typhoon/J-35 combination will replace them. Tristar, VC-10, C-130 are on the way out being replaced with FSTA/A400M. Nimrod R1/MR2, GR4A being replaced with Nimrod MRA4/ASTOR.

Also more or less correct. The Tornado GR-4s can soldier on if neccessary, as can the L-1011s if they have to. The VC-10s, C-130Ks Harriers really need to be replace. I'm not sure the older Nimrods need to be replaced, except from a budget position.

As we sit today, the RAF has several new airplane buys they have on their "wish list". These include the (not in any perticular order) A-400M, A-330MRTT, F-35, CH-47, C-17, Nimrod MR4A/ASTOR, RC-135, as well as normal O&M funding.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-21 13:51:44 and read 24755 times.

It seems EADS is negotiating a deal with ASEAN, a group countries apart from Malaysia including Indonesia, Fillipines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam. Between 40-60 aircraft replacing 72 C-130s'.

http://marches.lefigaro.fr/news/societes.html?&ID_NEWS=129653253
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601090&sid=aj7jVwAo5DFM


original photo: Anthony Osborne

Not really surprising IMO. The C-130 seems to small for heavy equipment (disaster relief) and the C-17 probably to expensive / unsuitable for soft airfield operations.



[Edited 2009-12-21 14:46:46 by keesje]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-21 14:07:22 and read 24742 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 273):
The UK could go with more Typhoons and the Rafale for the navy and save a big chunk of change and in my view a better solution and could be obtained sooner.

Hmmm.....Rafales? I suspect that its 55/45 that the UK government would opt out of the A400 before that happens. However, in the world of defense procurement, intimately linked to the political as it is, nothing would surprise me.

As for the subject of this thread, Reuters is reporting that the French minister "confirms a possible deadline" (I couldn't make this up if I tried!) until the "end of January" (didn't say what year).

Quote:
PARIS, Dec 16 (Reuters) - French Defence Minister Herve Morin confirmed a possible deadline of end-January to reach a financing deal for Airbus' (EAD.PA) A400M military transporter, which has faced cost problems.

"What remains are the financial negotiations, which are naturally difficult," Morin told French paper La Tribune in an interview published on Thursday.

"We are going to give ourselves until the end of January and the moratorium will be extended till then," he added.

I can't "confirm" it, but it seems "possible" to me at least, that this "deadline" thing is a moving target. Who are the hold outs? I suspect the French, Spanish, and Germans will write a blank check to keep this project going. The Brits? Do they have reservations?

I've never been one to question the wisdom of "home grown" defense solutions, particularly our own Air Force WRT the tanker. So while I applaud these European nations for building their own aircraft, understand that it will not be cheap in the end.

[Edited 2009-12-21 14:37:44]
Edited to remove question on launching system for the UK carriers.

[Edited 2009-12-21 14:39:13]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-22 02:29:46 and read 24559 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 278):

On the freighter side, the UK has a number of options :
C-17, C-130J, A400M, CN-235, C-27A, 767F, A330F.

Out of that list, the shortlist would be (based upon commonality/requirements) C-17, C-130J, A400M, A330F.

They are looking for tactical deployment, that shortlist is reduced

C-130J, A400M

They are looking at transporting their current helicopters and vehicles, the shortlist becomes

A400M.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 278):
Hmmm.....Rafales? I suspect that its 55/45 that the UK government would opt out of the A400 before that happens. However, in the world of defense procurement, intimately linked to the political as it is, nothing would surprise me.

More possible than I think people give it credit for, at the moment only 2 western carrier aircraft are on the market, the F/A-18 or the Rafale. The F-35 is still under development. Out of the F/A-18 or the Rafale, the Rafale suits the smaller UK carriers better.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Rheinwaldner
Posted 2009-12-22 03:49:23 and read 24520 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 279):
Rafale suits the smaller UK carriers better.

And is the world's second best A2A fighter. Even the F-22 hardly kills it. Google this:
Rafale UAE "4 0" "3 1"

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-22 04:02:03 and read 24515 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 277):
Fillipines

Is that country anywhere near the Philippines?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 277):
It seems EADS is negotiating a deal with ASEAN, a group countries apart from Malaysia including Indonesia, Fillipines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam. Between 40-60 aircraft replacing 72 C-130s'.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 277):
Not really surprising IMO. The C-130 seems to small for heavy equipment (disaster relief) and the C-17 probably to expensive / unsuitable for soft airfield operations.

While I agree the A-400M is a possibility for the ASEAN group, so would the C-130J and C-17A/ER. Those countries currently use the C-130 and it works well for them, the C-17 does have soft field capability as proven in Afghanistan nearly everyday. As far as the price difference between the three types, the C-130J is by far the lowest costs, for purchase and LCC, and the A-400M and C-17 would be very close to each other. Do we know if ASEAN is only talking to EADS, or are they also talking to Boeing and LM to get a better price from any of the OEMs?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 278):
Who are the hold outs? I suspect the French, Spanish, and Germans will write a blank check to keep this project going. The Brits? Do they have reservations?

I believe the Germans also have reservations about the new pricing and production levels as well as the British.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 279):
On the freighter side, the UK has a number of options :
C-17, C-130J, A400M, CN-235, C-27A, 767F, A330F.

Out of that list, the shortlist would be (based upon commonality/requirements) C-17, C-130J, A400M, A330F.

They are looking for tactical deployment, that shortlist is reduced

C-130J, A400M

They are looking at transporting their current helicopters and vehicles, the shortlist becomes

A400M.

The C-17 can also do the tactical mission, as both the RAF and USAF use it for both strategic and tactical missions. The C-17 can also haul the current helios (including the CH-47, which the A-400M cannot carry) and heavy vehicles, too. Also the C-17 carries more helios (up to 2 depending on type) and vehicles (up to 6 depending on type) compared to the A-400M, and like the A-400M (and C-130J) can carry them directly to the foreward bases where they are needed.

I agree on the freighter side, for the RAF, the B-767F, CN-235 and C-27J are probibly non starters.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-22 06:34:26 and read 24462 times.

I gotta defend my beloved C-17 again!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 277):
Not really surprising IMO. The C-130 seems to small for heavy equipment (disaster relief) and the C-17 probably to expensive / unsuitable for soft airfield operations.

Assuming a disaster relief scenario (operating in/out of damaged airfields) there are very few scenarios where an airfield is damaged just enough that a C-17 can't make it in but an A400 can. Also, the high cost of the C-17 vs the A400 is debatable, as we've all seen in our polite arguments.

I would think that these relatively poor nations (not including Singapore) would also look for an aircraft that they could use more frequently than during a natural disaster. Just like w/ South Africa, the A400M may be what these countries want, but the cost...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 279):
They are looking for tactical deployment, that shortlist is reduced

C-130J, A400M

Zeke, I've listed the incredible tactical capabilities of the amazing C-17 repeatedly. The tactical capabilites of the A400M over the C-17 are MARGINAL and not worth the smaller size and slightly less (assumed) cost. Especially to the UK, which already owns 6. I'm pretty certain the UK would drop the A400 entirely and buy 6-10 C-17s if Airbus/EADS wasn't threatening to close that wing factory.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 281):
Is that country anywhere near the Philippines?

TB, did you just point out a spelling error?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-22 07:07:46 and read 24450 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 281):
and the A-400M and C-17 would be very close to each other

The power of repeating. If we repeat this non sense very often, maybe more will start thinkingthere's some truth in it and who knows it becomes reality..

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 282):
Zeke, I've listed the incredible tactical capabilities of the amazing C-17 repeatedly. The tactical capabilites of the A400M over the C-17 are MARGINAL and not worth the smaller size and slightly less (assumed) cost.

I think the real soft terrain "semi unprepared" runway capabilities are limitted and proved less good then hoped. The C-17 damages soft airfields, needing repair for further operations. Slow progress is made to improve the capabilities. Lessons learned in this respect are applied on the A400M. The proposed new C-17 version has an extra center gear to reduce the problem.

While other developments in the air war precluded the need for Kukes Airfield during Operations ALLIED FORCE, the limitation identified by the site survey team could have been a show-stopper had Kukes, in fact, been needed for achievement of the military objectives. This wake-up call should have alerted interested parties that the C-17 semi-prepared runway capability may not be as robust as was previously believed. Operations at Rhino LZ, although very successful, shed more light on limitations of the C-17’s semi-prepared runway capabilities.

This is not to say that the C-17 is not semi-prepared runway capable, but it is to say that this capability is not as routine as many interested parties would think. Landing a 447,000 lb C-17 on semi-prepared runways and more importantly stopping it in 3000 feet presents challenges never before encountered when landing smaller, lighter, aircraft such as the C-123 or C-130 on semi-prepared airfields. The challenges increase significantly when a scenario calls for frequent C-17 landings on the same semi-prepared runway without allowance for runway maintenance.

The true status of the C-17’s ability to routinely land on semi-prepared runways should be of great interest to the U.S. Army community since the Army stands to lose the most if the C-17 semi-prepared runway capability is not as robust as believed. This ability to land on a semi-prepared runway coupled with the other tactical qualities of the C-17 prompted the Army to stand solidly behind the C-17 purchase when many lobbied in favor of other options. This support was primarily due to the belief that the C-17 could and would routinely land on semi-prepared runways in support of army objectives. Another major reason for support of the C-17 over other options was the stated ability of the C-17 to support both the Alpha and Bravo echelons of the Strategic Brigade Airdrop mission.


https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_f3a8830c-023a-4816-bbaf-8fb4d70c93a4/display.aspx?rs=enginespage

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-22 07:47:42 and read 24420 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 278):
"What remains are the financial negotiations, which are naturally difficult," Morin told French paper La Tribune in an interview published on Thursday.

He has a gift for understatement.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 278):
"We are going to give ourselves until the end of January and the moratorium will be extended till then," he added.

And if we don't have an agreement at the end of January, we'll give ourselves till the end of February, and so on, and so on... It kind of reminds one of the Eurofighter negotiations, doesn't it?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 283):
The power of repeating. If we repeat this non sense very often, maybe more will start thinkingthere's some truth in it and who knows it becomes reality..

And to balance that, there's the power of ignoring, like you ignoring that the South Africans just dumped the A400M due to its high cost.

I think the ASEAN group, or anybody else, would be crazy to order the A400M till the first production standard A400M has been produced. Till then there's huge risk in terms of price, performance, functionality and availability. We still don't even know what the "production standard" will be! Even after the first production standard A400M is produced there will be a lot of risk with regard to maintainability and operational issues.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-22 08:01:48 and read 24414 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 283):
I think the real soft terrain "semi unprepared" runway capabilities are limitted and proved less good then hoped. The C-17 damages soft airfields, needing repair for further operations. Slow progress is made to improve the capabilities. Lessons learned in this respect are applied on the A400M. The proposed new C-17 version has an extra center gear to reduce the problem.

Apparently the A400M is a lot easier on the dirt surfaces than the C-17 is. Granted, the A400M hasn't demonstrated this yet, but I have no reason to doubt it. That being the case, in a future scenario that requires lots of dirt landings, the A400M will probably be the better choice. The C-17 would still be effective, just fewer sorties or less than a full load. And a few more bulldozers to clean up the damage left by 450,000 lbs of awesomeness...(approx max soft field weight)

I don't think that's enough of a reason to not consider the C-17 a tactical airlifter. Also, the 'frequently used soft field' scenario should be rare and temporary in future conflicts.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-22 08:26:44 and read 24405 times.

Some interesting things about A400M from the AWST article posted by KC135TopBoom in the flight testing thread:

Quote:

The cockpit standard used in the aircraft has most, though not all, of the features of the production aircraft. Along with the HUD, a digital map is installed, as are portions of the military communications suite. Originally, an EADS terrain reference navigation system was on the docket, but another route is now being pursued.

“The initial plan was to develop this function in-house. But after in-depth analysis we came to the conclusion that it would be more efficient to buy from outside suppliers with experience and capabilities,” says an Airbus executive. “A request for proposals was launched last summer. Responses are under review for a decision before year-end.” The contract covering the purchase of a replacement system is imminent.

Should North American firms even consider bidding?  Smile

Quote:

Five A400M aircraft—rather than the originally planned six—will carry out the flight-test program.

They're so costly even EADS can't afford to buy enough!  Smile

Quote:

Aircraft MSN001, 003 and 006 will be based at Toulouse; MSN002 and 004 will be at Seville.

Should make for some good spotting opportunties.

Quote:

In parallel to expediting the delayed flight-test program, industry and the partner nations are now trying to come to an agreement on revised cost and program schedules. In mid-December, European armaments agency Occar, which manages the project on behalf of the partner nations, is understood to have written to industry outlining the ministerial proposals for the program revisions.

Zeke, since you are so good with the documents, any chance you can get us a copy?  Smile

Quote:

Airbus parent EADS is pushing for additional funding from the partner nations to defray some of the spiraling costs of the program. While France seems amenable to providing more relief, Germany has so far shown no willingness to share any of the additional burden. London, meanwhile, while partially sympathetic to the industry position, is pointing out it does not have access to any more funding, citing operations in Afghanistan as its absolute priority.

Pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it?

Quote:

British industry sources suggest the U.K. will - should it remain in the program - cut the number of aircraft it is scheduled to take to offset rising costs. Originally, the Royal Air Force was to receive 25 A400Ms but, in light of the likely price hike, this could be reduced to 14-19 aircraft.

Should it remain in the program?  wideeyed 

Let's see: FR wants to give Airbus whatever they want, DE isn't willing to compromise at all, and UK is saying we'll take whatever it is you are going to make as long as you don't ask for any more money?

Oy vey!  wideeyed 

Where's my popcorn?  Smile

Seems like the UK is the only realist in this pan-European dream turned nightmare project. Sad

DE should realize they won't get blood from a stone.

FR should realize they can't demand that others spend more money.

The UK position is kind of a sad recognition of the political reality that they can't pull out of the project.

It would seem the heart of the solution would be to produce a baseline model so the UK can get as much bang for the buck, and a high end model so FR can spend all the money it wants to spend, and then DE can choose between the two, like it or leave it.

See, I should be in politics!  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-22 08:57:20 and read 24383 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 285):
I don't think that's enough of a reason to not consider the C-17 a tactical airlifter. Also, the 'frequently used soft field' scenario should be rare and temporary in future conflicts.

I think the C-17 are used seldom for rel soft runways. They are mostly used (& very successful) as strategic transports.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 286):
Should North American firms even consider bidding?

Why not? There are many US supllier in the supply chai.. oh sorry, let's not break the legend..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 286):
Oy vey!

It's called multi billion negotiations. Overreacting on every move from one of the parties is funny but doesn't reflect what is happening.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 286):
this pan-European dream turned nightmare project.

I think this says all about your personal preferences and pre occupations.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-22 09:36:55 and read 24361 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 287):
It's called multi billion negotiations. Overreacting on every move from one of the parties is funny but doesn't reflect what is happening.

Well, none of us knows what's happening, do we? Since this is a discussion forum, care to add to the discussion? Will we see UK pull out of the program, as AWST suggests is a possibility? Will FR get its way and let Airbus have relief or will DE get its way and provide no relief, other than perhaps letting Airbus out of the penalty payments?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 287):
I think this says all about your personal preferences and pre occupations.

It seems that you like to attack the man but not the argument.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 284):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 283):
The power of repeating. If we repeat this non sense very often, maybe more will start thinkingthere's some truth in it and who knows it becomes reality..

And to balance that, there's the power of ignoring, like you ignoring that the South Africans just dumped the A400M due to its high cost.

And it seems you will ignore anything that doesn't fit your "personal preferences and pre occupations", no?

Unfortunately for you, facts are stubborn things.

Despite having a few examples flying around, the A400M is still in limbo, and has already had one partner leave the program due to its high cost.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-12-22 10:29:28 and read 24339 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 282):
Assuming a disaster relief scenario (operating in/out of damaged airfields) there are very few scenarios where an airfield is damaged just enough that a C-17 can't make it in but an A400 can. Also, the high cost of the C-17 vs the A400 is debatable, as we've all seen in our polite arguments.

Here is the real question. What is the field performance of a A400M with 32T of cargo vs a C17 with 32T of cargo.

Clearly the field performance charts for both are not exactly published everywhere, but a betting man would likely put it on the plane that is running 1/2 empty vs one at the bleeding edge of its payload capacity.

So if you need to get 32 tons of cargo into a damaged airport or other area...

also this ignores that tactical lift has long worked on getting supplies into areas with NO suitable landing areas for anything... We can deliever goods now with ease to areas without landing. Costs more to do it that way but if thats the only way it can get done.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-22 11:02:35 and read 24323 times.

It seems the much lauded soft field capability of the A400M vs C-17 is useful if:

Field is sized so that C-17 can't make it in but A400M can

Field is damaged enough so that C-17 can't make it in but A400M can

You are bringing in 32T or less of cargo

You are bringing in something that fits in the smaller A400M

You aren't willing to clean up damage made by the heavier C-17 beyond any damage that which the A400M makes

You are willing to risk using a ~$200M A400M or C17 in a soft-field landing instead of other less costly assets like a ~$10M Chinook that can lift 28,000 lbs

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2009-12-22 12:34:23 and read 24300 times.

What is the pressure, (psi), exerted on the ground by the tires of a C-17 and an A400, under maximum and also similar loads?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-12-22 14:53:41 and read 24230 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 284):
And if we don't have an agreement at the end of January, we'll give ourselves till the end of February, and so on, and so on... It kind of reminds one of the Eurofighter negotiations, doesn't it?

Good point. We can extrapolate from those negotiations to predict the outcome of the A400 negotiations.  Wink

Quoting Revelation (Reply 286):
Should North American firms even consider bidding? Smile

Only on the day hell freezes.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-22 15:00:35 and read 24227 times.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 291):
What is the pressure, (psi), exerted on the ground by the tires of a C-17 and an A400, under maximum and also similar loads?

The number of wheels are the same, the OEW of a C-17 is nearly twice as high as a A400M. Thrust reverse with 4 big props isn't the same as thrust reversers too, as is thrust generated lift & low speed charateristics (the A400M is fly by wire). I guess we'll see some demos at Farnborough of 4 engined, high powered fly by wire with high roll rates, low speed peformance & enveloppe protection. The A380 demo will look bleak IMO..

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-22 15:39:21 and read 24230 times.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 289):

The A400M would use less runway than the C-17, both for takeoff and landing. Props are far more efficient at low speeds at imparting thrust.

The OEW of the C-17 is around 128,139 kg, the A400M is 78,600 kg. The A400M is capable of 37,000 kg payload in a normal logistics role (similar to the C-17), in the tactical mode, it has a payload limit of 30,000 kg.

At 32,000 kg the ZFW of the C-17 would be around 160t, the A400M around 110t, the C-17 needs to lift 45% ZFW, and accelerate to higher operating speeds.

Add fuel, LDG WT of 175t for the C-17, and 122t (Max LDG Wt) for the A400M, after offload TOW of 145t for the C-17 and 90t for the A400M. The C-17 would land in around 3000 ft, the A400M in around 2750 ft. Takeoff, I do not have a number for the C-17 off hand, the A400M would be 600 ft.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 290):

The A400M has a taller cargo bay than the C-17, just not as wide. The max logistic payload is 37t at 2.25 g or a tactical payload of 30t at 2.5g.

The price of the A400M is not the same as the C-17, it is significantly less, closer to half the cost.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 291):

I do not know the ACN off hand.

I do remember the C-17 minimum CBR is around 10, the A400M can land and takeoff in CBR as low 2-4 (sand/bull dust), a CBR of 6 (football oval) would allow of over 100 takeoffs and landings.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2009-12-22 17:38:14 and read 24178 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 293):
The number of wheels are the same,

What is the tire size of the a400?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-23 03:42:25 and read 24068 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 287):
I think the C-17 are used seldom for rel soft runways. They are mostly used (& very successful) as strategic transports.

I hear this argument alot, isn't that kind of like saying: "The A-10 isn't that great at killing tanks because it is only bombing people and buildings in Afghanistan and Iraq."? If there was a need for more C-17 dirt landings, it would be doing a lot more dirt landings. The C-17 can be used on dirt runways, it has in the past and is still doing it (occassionally) today. After 8 years in OEF, most airfields have been improved. No Air Force is going to want to use dirt fields indefinitely; those fields are rough on any large aircraft (C-17, A400M, C-130) and will be avoided for long term use. If the USAF was flying the A400M, they'd be flying it to the same fields as the C-17.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 294):
The A400M is capable of 37,000 kg payload in a normal logistics role (similar to the C-17),

Not sure what you mean by similar. Max C-17 payload is 65,000 kg. It can carry 59000 kg to a dirt strip.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 294):
Takeoff, I do not have a number for the C-17 off hand, the A400M would be 600 ft.

600 ft? Sounds low, are you sure? Of course empty weights usually don't matter too much.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 296):
Keesje, you do know you are agruing with a C-17 Pilot, don't you?

I don't know everything about the C-17 and I've even learned a few things about it from these discussion boards. Let's keep discussing...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 294):
The A400M has a taller cargo bay than the C-17, just not as wide.

I have different data. A400M website says the height of the cargo hold height under the wing is 12ft 7 in; C-17 under the wing is 12 ft 8 in (source is loadmaster sitting next to me) . Max height for A400M is 13 ft 1 in, max for C-17 is 15 ft 8in. I know I've seen that graphic that shows the A400M a bit taller, it just doesn't check with my numbers.

Also, I'm tired of doing unit conversions. From now on lets only use feet, pounds, nautical miles, gallons, lbs thrust, and US dollars. Why would anybody want to use anything else anyways?

[Edited 2009-12-23 03:43:49]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2009-12-23 08:46:49 and read 23940 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
(source is loadmaster sitting next to me) .

Just what would a loadmaster know, after all it is just a guessing game is it not? I am sure the Anetters know more  Smile  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-23 09:05:12 and read 23936 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
Also, I'm tired of doing unit conversions. From now on lets only use feet, pounds, nautical miles, gallons, lbs thrust, and US dollars. Why would anybody want to use anything else anyways?

I agree. Some here like to use the metric system, then the imperial system, and sometimes even mix them in the same reply just to through confusion into it.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 294):
The A400M has a taller cargo bay than the C-17, just not as wide.

I have different data. A400M website says the height of the cargo hold height under the wing is 12ft 7 in; C-17 under the wing is 12 ft 8 in (source is loadmaster sitting next to me) . Max height for A400M is 13 ft 1 in, max for C-17 is 15 ft 8in. I know I've seen that graphic that shows the A400M a bit taller, it just doesn't check with my numbers.

That's what I though, the C-17 has a taller cargo compartment, but I was looking for the references.

Here is what I found for the A-400M (from the EADS [airbus military] web site);
Cargo hold lenght (excluding loading ramp) = 58' 1"
Cargo hold height (under wing box) = 12' 7"
Cargo hold height (aft of wing box) = 13' 1"
Cargo hold width = 13' 1"
Cargo hold volume (gross, cu ft) = 12007 cu ft
Maximum payload = 81,573 lbs
Maximum unrefueled range with 30 tonnes of cargo = 2450 nm


http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Specifications.aspx

Here is what I found for the C-17 (from Boeing's [IDS] web site);
Cargo hold lenght (excluding loading ramp) = 68' 2.5"
Cargo hold height (under wing box) = 12' 3.6"
Cargo hold height (aft of wing box) = 14' 9.6"
Cargo hold width = 18'
Cargo hold volume (gross, cu ft) = ????
Maximum payload = 170,900 lbs
Maximum unrefeuled range with max payload = 2400 nm

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-23 11:49:03 and read 23884 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
Not sure what you mean by similar. Max C-17 payload is 65,000 kg. It can carry 59000 kg to a dirt strip.

From what I understand the A400M carries more troops than the C-17 (116 A400M, 102 C-17). The C-17 and A400M both have 54 seats permanently installed sidewall seats.

Also when transporting troops and payload, I thought they were very similar, the A400M has the 54 troops on the sidewalls, and 9 pallet positions, I thought the C-17 was the same.

Do you know what the max payload on the C-17 is at 2.5 g, the numbers you are quoting I think are for 2.25g or lower.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):

600 ft? Sounds low, are you sure? Of course empty weights usually don't matter too much.

The chart that I got the info from is in my reply 294, I agree it sounds low. Even it if was 600m, that is still well below what the C-17 or C-130J can do.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
I have different data. A400M website says the height of the cargo hold height under the wing is 12ft 7 in; C-17 under the wing is 12 ft 8 in (source is loadmaster sitting next to me) . Max height for A400M is 13 ft 1 in, max for C-17 is 15 ft 8in. I know I've seen that graphic that shows the A400M a bit taller, it just doesn't check with my numbers.

The A400M forward cargo hold is 3.85m, the C-17 is published at 3.76 m

"height - 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters) forward of the wing"

from http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/cargo/c17.html

Cargo Compartment: length, 88 feet (26.82 meters); width, 18 feet (5.48 meters); height, 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters)

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86

and this correlates with what EADS is saying.

What I have read is that the C-17 and A400M can both take the CH-47 and AH-64 to the same level of disassembly due to their similar cargo hold heights.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):

From now on lets only use feet, pounds, nautical miles, gallons, lbs thrust, and US dollars. Why would anybody want to use anything else anyways?

If you want a job that is just imperial, avaition is the wrong field to be in, most of the world is metric. When I fly to the US I do not ask for tht QNH in mB, runway lengths in m, and fuel in liters, I use what I get. Likewise when I fly in China and Russia, climbs are in m/s, levels are in meters, fuel is in l etc.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 298):
Some here like to use the metric system, then the imperial system, and sometimes even mix them in the same reply just to through confusion into it.

That does not confuse the issue at all. If data is published metric/imperial, and that data is repeated in the same units, it is accuratly reporting the source.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-23 13:46:55 and read 23827 times.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 295):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 293):
The number of wheels are the same,

What is the tire size of the a400?

I do not know. Both large, so the contact area won't be that different probably..

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 296):
Keesje, you do know you are agruing with a C-17 Pilot, don't you?

KC10 I thought..
Anyway looking at the max payloads and design of both the A400M and C-17 I guess comparing them is a bit uselesss. The C-17 seems almost twice as heavy then the A400M. What makes me wonder is why an airforce that finds out the C130 fuselage has become to small for the kind of mid weight advanced vehicles/helicopters we see these day would swap to the 4x as big/haevy/expense C-17, bypassing the brand new prop with big bay right inbetween. Suggesting the C-17 as a tactical transport if the C-17 sounds a big farfetched to be honest.. The "semi" part of "semi prepared runways" should not be underestimated / neglected for the occasion.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-23 17:10:20 and read 23832 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 298):
Here is what I found for the A-400M (from the EADS [airbus military] web site);
Cargo hold lenght (excluding loading ramp) = 58' 1"
Cargo hold height (under wing box) = 12' 7"
Cargo hold height (aft of wing box) = 13' 1"
Cargo hold width = 13' 1"
Cargo hold volume (gross, cu ft) = 12007 cu ft
Maximum payload = 81,573 lbs
Maximum unrefueled range with 30 tonnes of cargo = 2450 nm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 298):
Here is what I found for the C-17 (from Boeing's [IDS] web site);
Cargo hold lenght (excluding loading ramp) = 68' 2.5"
Cargo hold height (under wing box) = 12' 3.6"
Cargo hold height (aft of wing box) = 14' 9.6"
Cargo hold width = 18'
Cargo hold volume (gross, cu ft) = ????
Maximum payload = 170,900 lbs
Maximum unrefeuled range with max payload = 2400 nm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 299):
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):

From now on lets only use feet, pounds, nautical miles, gallons, lbs thrust, and US dollars. Why would anybody want to use anything else anyways?

If you want a job that is just imperial, avaition is the wrong field to be in, most of the world is metric. When I fly to the US I do not ask for tht QNH in mB, runway lengths in m, and fuel in liters, I use what I get. Likewise when I fly in China and Russia, climbs are in m/s, levels are in meters, fuel is in l etc.

ICAO uses altitudes in feet, and the standardized altitudes are referred as flight levels in feet, i.e. FL350, FL290, FL430, ect. I think Cargotanker is correct, and he probibly flys to more places than you do.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 300):
Anyway looking at the max payloads and design of both the A400M and C-17 I guess comparing them is a bit uselesss.

The A-400M max payload is 81,573 lbs, if it ever meets its original design and contract specs. The C-17 has a max payload of 170,900 lbs, or more than 111% of the load the A-400M might one day carry.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 300):
What makes me wonder is why an airforce that finds out the C130 fuselage has become to small for the kind of mid weight advanced vehicles/helicopters we see these day would swap to the 4x as big/haevy/expense C-17, bypassing the brand new prop with big bay right inbetween.

Keep wondering. The A-400M has one international sale still on the books (4 airplanes), the C-17 has been sold to 5 international customers (20 and counting airplanes), not counting the US. Are you now claiming the C-17 costs 4X what the A-400M costs, now? BTW, the ramp parking box for the C-17 is only 25% bigger than that for the A-400M, not 400% bigger as you suggested.

the C-17 is 174' long and a wingspan of 169'. The A-400M is 148' long and a wingspan of 139' 1". The A-400M has a MTOW of 310,852 lbs, the C-17 has a MTOW of 585,000 lbs, or only about 75% heavier than the A-400M. But it carries more than twice the load and has longer unrefueled legs, if both are carrying their max payload weight, or any other weight.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17customers.html

Quoting Keesje (Reply 300):
Suggesting the C-17 as a tactical transport if the C-17 sounds a big farfetched to be honest..

remember your spider chart for the KC-135 vs KC-767 vs KC-30? Well here is a new spider chart for the C-17 vs the A-400M.

there are four pages, comparing the C-17A to the C-5, A-400M, C-17B, and a future aircraft called the JTFL.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...litary/c17/docs/C-17Comparison.pdf

Suggesting you understand either strategic or tactical airlift (or air refueling) is farfetched, also, to be honest.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2009-12-23 18:06:52 and read 23819 times.

I think someone already asked this but what are the capabilities, (takeoff, landing, range, fuel burn), of the C-17 at the A400's max payload? That way we can compare apples to apples.

On the civilian side, I have read many assertions that the plane with the greater size generally has a CASM advantage, so why not buy it? Why wouldn't that same formula work, (given a cargo equivalent to CASM), for cargo planes?

For example; the 784 will have lower trip costs than the more expensive to purchase 380 but the 380's greater CASM makes it the more versatile, hence better, deal.

That's why I'm curious how the A400 and C17 compare doing the exact same mission. How much cheaper is it to fly, (ignoring purchase cost just this once), a fully loaded A400 than a half loaded C-17?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-12-23 19:02:59 and read 23814 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
ICAO uses altitudes in feet, and the standardized altitudes are referred as flight levels in feet, i.e. FL350, FL290, FL430, ect. I think Cargotanker is correct, and he probibly flys to more places than you do.

You think lots of things....most of them are never backed up with any substance, just like that quote.

ICAO is SI (i.e. metric for everything), as defined in Annex 5. Non-SI is acceptable, but not the ICAO standard called for in Annex 5.

Quote:
3.1 SI Units

3.1.1 The International System of Units developed and maintained by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM) shall, subject to the provisions of 3.2 and 3.3, be used as the standard system of units of measurement for all aspects of international civil aviation air and ground operations.

Annex 5 also defines the 6 international languages, English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2009-12-23 21:22:51 and read 23782 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
Keep wondering. The A-400M has one international sale still on the books (4 airplanes), the C-17 has been sold to 5 international customers (20 and counting airplanes), not counting the US.

Perhaps it is because the C-17 has been on the market longer compared to A400M as an actual product, vice one in development? Many customers aren't too crazy about buying developmental products these days.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-23 22:33:20 and read 23754 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
Also, I'm tired of doing unit conversions. From now on lets only use feet, pounds, nautical miles, gallons, lbs thrust, and US dollars. Why would anybody want to use anything else anyways?

I was trying to make a joke, by being incredibly arrogant to point of being sarcastic. I'll include a smiley face or LOL from now on...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2009-12-24 00:42:59 and read 23720 times.

I thought the Geneva convention prohibited premeditated lol'ing on civilian populations...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-24 01:35:39 and read 23703 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 298):
That's what I though, the C-17 has a taller cargo compartment, but I was looking for the references.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 299):
"height - 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters) forward of the wing"

My apologies, I made a math error. I was told (and read) 148 inches under the wing. I converted to 12' 8", it actually is 12' 4". You can see why I hate converting units...LOL  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2009-12-24 06:36:56 and read 23633 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 305):
I was trying to make a joke, by being incredibly arrogant to point of being sarcastic. I'll include a smiley face or LOL from now on...



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 306):
I thought the Geneva convention prohibited premeditated lol'ing on civilian populations...

Can't you see this is THE A400M we are talking about? This is Serious Business! No time for joking when there are spider charts to be made!

Now let's get back to the Serious Business of a nickname. I suggest "Ambergris".

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-24 08:04:50 and read 23609 times.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 302):
I think someone already asked this but what are the capabilities, (takeoff, landing, range, fuel burn), of the C-17 at the A400's max payload? That way we can compare apples to apples.

Even that will not be a good apples to apples comparison. A C-17 carrying the 81,000 lb payload of a maxed out A-400M would have significantly more range and performance, and a slightly higher fuel burn rate.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 302):
On the civilian side, I have read many assertions that the plane with the greater size generally has a CASM advantage, so why not buy it? Why wouldn't that same formula work, (given a cargo equivalent to CASM), for cargo planes?

You are talking about ton miles which cargo companies and military cargo forces use, but here the advantage is clearly in favor of the C-17, unless you need to move something weighing less than about 30 tonnes for a short distance. Even then the A-400M is outclassed by the C-130J for cargo that can fit into both airplanes.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 302):
For example; the 784 will have lower trip costs than the more expensive to purchase 380 but the 380's greater CASM makes it the more versatile, hence better, deal.

It would really depend on the mission you wanted to fly. In some cases the A-380 is more efficient, but in others the B-748 is.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 302):
That's why I'm curious how the A400 and C17 compare doing the exact same mission. How much cheaper is it to fly, (ignoring purchase cost just this once), a fully loaded A400 than a half loaded C-17?

A half load (by weight) C-17 would compare very well to a full load (by weight) A-400M, but I believe the difference is slight under these conditions. The main advantage for the A-400M is comparing a fully loaded (by weight) A-400M to a fully loaded (by weight) C-17, which can fly about the same unrefueled distance, the A-400M will burn some 20%-25% less fuel. But then again, the C-17 will also bring more than twice the cargo. So in you need to ship the same amount of cargo weight (about 160,000 lbs), the C-17 (which can carry up to 170,900 lbs) can do it with just one airplane where you would need two A-400Ms.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 304):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
Keep wondering. The A-400M has one international sale still on the books (4 airplanes), the C-17 has been sold to 5 international customers (20 and counting airplanes), not counting the US.

Perhaps it is because the C-17 has been on the market longer compared to A400M as an actual product, vice one in development? Many customers aren't too crazy about buying developmental products these days.

Don't forget the C-17 did not get its first international order until about 2004, and that was originally a lease (that later turned into a sale). The A-400M was launched with sales in 2005, about a year apart. The first customer, the UK also bought the C-130J and A-400M. the next two customers, Austraila and Canada never bought the A-400M. The two original international customers for the A-400M did not buy the C-17 (or C-130J), but South Africa cancelled due to costs. What they do to replace the A-400Ms will be significand, I think it will be the C-130J, unless they want the airplanes quickly, then they will take C-17s for delivery with a year to a year and a half. India, which apparently will order up to 10 C-17s and Qatar, which recently took delivery of its second did not consider the A-400M, mostly due to costs comparisons and late deliveries. So, until the A-400M program straightens itself out, I doubt there will be many, if any orders. I look to see the EU customers accepting the 25% cut in delivered aircraft for at least 10 years, or so.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 308):
This is Serious Business! No time for joking when there are spider charts to be made!

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Look at my reply #301.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 308):
Now let's get back to the Serious Business of a nickname. I suggest "Ambergris".

How about Pinocchio?

http://brunotto588.blog.espresso.rep...o/images/2007/07/01/pinocchio2.gif

 duck   duck   duck   duck 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-24 08:44:41 and read 23595 times.

I think C-17 production will stop around 2012-2013 and the A400 production total will be roughly 3x the C-17''s when production is ended in about 2029.

The recent A380 and A330F proved better then promised & I expect the same for the A400M.

But my opinion is as good as anyone's  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-24 12:07:26 and read 23542 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
I think C-17 production will stop around 2012-2013 and the A400 production total will be roughly 3x the C-17''s when production is ended in about 2029.

So you think more than 660 A-400Ms will be built? Who is going to buy them?

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
The recent A380 and A330F proved better then promised & I expect the same for the A400M.

Ahhhh, the A-380 is meeting its promised performance. The A-330F is still in flight testing, so no one knows yet. The A-400M will need another 10 + years to reach its promised performance.

 flamed   footinmouth   flamed   footinmouth 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
But my opinion is as good as anyone's

Many people here, including me, do not share your opinions, but you do have a right to it.

 duck   duck   duck   duck   duck 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-24 12:54:01 and read 23523 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 311):
Many people here, including me, do not share your opinions, but you do have a right to it.

Some opinions here are presented as facts. Praising national products is standard for many people here, but not enough. The competition has to be questioned, dismissed and downplayed at every opportunity. Enemy thinking I guess.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 311):
The A-330F is still in flight testing, so no one knows yet

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...bus%20A330-200F%20Gets%20A%20Boost

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 311):
The A-400M will need another 10 + years to reach its promised performance.

Opinions are often presented as facts around here.  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-25 14:10:34 and read 23355 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 312):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 311):
Many people here, including me, do not share your opinions, but you do have a right to it.

Some opinions here are presented as facts.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 312):
Opinions are often presented as facts around here.

Do you mean like these?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
I think C-17 production will stop around 2012-2013 and the A400 production total will be roughly 3x the C-17''s when production is ended in about 2029.

The recent A380 and A330F proved better then promised & I expect the same for the A400M.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 293):
the OEW of a C-17 is nearly twice as high as a A400M



Quoting Keesje (Reply 293):
I guess we'll see some demos at Farnborough of 4 engined, high powered fly by wire with high roll rates, low speed peformance & enveloppe protection.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-25 14:34:05 and read 23349 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 313):
Do you mean like these?

Yes, as you see I use words like

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 313):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
I think



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 313):
& I expect



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 313):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 293):
I guess

and that KC135topboom is a big difference with you. You just state your opinions as facts.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-25 14:44:23 and read 23345 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 314):
Yes, as you see I use words like



Quoting Keesje (Reply 314):
and that KC135topboom is a big difference with you. You just state your opinions as facts.

Do you mean like these?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 311):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
I think C-17 production will stop around 2012-2013 and the A400 production total will be roughly 3x the C-17''s when production is ended in about 2029.

So you think more than 660 A-400Ms will be built? Who is going to buy them?

Or how about these?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 300):
Anyway looking at the max payloads and design of both the A400M and C-17 I guess comparing them is a bit uselesss.

The A-400M max payload is 81,573 lbs, if it ever meets its original design and contract specs. The C-17 has a max payload of 170,900 lbs, or more than 111% of the load the A-400M might one day carry.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 300):
What makes me wonder is why an airforce that finds out the C130 fuselage has become to small for the kind of mid weight advanced vehicles/helicopters we see these day would swap to the 4x as big/haevy/expense C-17, bypassing the brand new prop with big bay right inbetween.

Keep wondering. The A-400M has one international sale still on the books (4 airplanes), the C-17 has been sold to 5 international customers (20 and counting airplanes), not counting the US. Are you now claiming the C-17 costs 4X what the A-400M costs, now? BTW, the ramp parking box for the C-17 is only 25% bigger than that for the A-400M, not 400% bigger as you suggested.

the C-17 is 174' long and a wingspan of 169'. The A-400M is 148' long and a wingspan of 139' 1". The A-400M has a MTOW of 310,852 lbs, the C-17 has a MTOW of 585,000 lbs, or only about 75% heavier than the A-400M. But it carries more than twice the load and has longer unrefueled legs, if both are carrying their max payload weight, or any other weight.

Here is a few more "opinions" I posted as facts.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 298):
Here is what I found for the A-400M (from the EADS [airbus military] web site);
Cargo hold lenght (excluding loading ramp) = 58' 1"
Cargo hold height (under wing box) = 12' 7"
Cargo hold height (aft of wing box) = 13' 1"
Cargo hold width = 13' 1"
Cargo hold volume (gross, cu ft) = 12007 cu ft
Maximum payload = 81,573 lbs
Maximum unrefueled range with 30 tonnes of cargo = 2450 nm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 298):
Here is what I found for the C-17 (from Boeing's [IDS] web site);
Cargo hold lenght (excluding loading ramp) = 68' 2.5"
Cargo hold height (under wing box) = 12' 3.6"
Cargo hold height (aft of wing box) = 14' 9.6"
Cargo hold width = 18'
Cargo hold volume (gross, cu ft) = ????
Maximum payload = 170,900 lbs
Maximum unrefeuled range with max payload = 2400 nm

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-25 19:30:14 and read 23303 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 310):
I think C-17 production will stop around 2012-2013 and the A400 production total will be roughly 3x the C-17''s when production is ended in about 2029.

And I think the UK will be reducing their commitment so the first batch of 180 will probably be 170 or so.

And I can't think of any feasible scenario where 660 A400Ms are sold.

And I think you can't either, and thus I think you are just pulling our legs.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-26 07:02:11 and read 23200 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 316):
And I think the UK will be reducing their commitment so the first batch of 180 will probably be 170 or so.

And I can't think of any feasible scenario where 660 A400Ms are sold.

And I think you can't either, and thus I think you are just pulling our legs.

If all the European customers accept the 25% price increase and reduce their orders to stay at the same contract price, that will reduce the European orders to about 135 A-400Ms.

I agree, I cannot see the A-400M ever getting 660 orders, I doubt it will ever get more than 200 orders.

He is.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2009-12-26 11:18:53 and read 23093 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317):
I agree, I cannot see the A-400M ever getting 660 orders, I doubt it will ever get more than 200 orders.

We could always have NG interceed with their partners and ask them to build it here in Alabama. What is the difference, Tankers for Air Force, designed and built in France. A400M designed in Europe, built in the US. If the tanker deal is so good for the US, this should be great for EADS/Europe. Do you think that will work?, or will we see EADS/Europe not quite so willing. Cripes we could even buy some withh that arrangement.  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-26 12:00:42 and read 23094 times.

1500 Herc are operated by 60 airforce (of 2100 produced)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules#Operators

Then there are hundreds of illiushin and Antonov around. The average age of these thousands is probably above 20 years. They might fly forever or simply never be replaced.

Of course hundreds will be replaced by the 4x as big C-17s in tactical roles  Yeah sure and even more by hundreds of similar sized new C130s and KC390s (LM considers doubling its C-130J production rate of one aircraft a month.)

Still it is maybe possible the A400 might sell another 400-500 in the next 20 yrs. Competition in this mid segment maybe isn't as furious as some think.

Of course we do not know how the A400M will perform. However the recent A380, MRTT and A330F seem to do OK, and the 1st A400M proto hit the target M0.72 on its second flight. Not a disastrous sign maybe.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ould%20Dominate%20Strategic%20Lift
http://marches.lefigaro.fr/news/societes.html?&ID_NEWS=129653253

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l189/Nakrop/A400M.jpg

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-12-26 12:03:20 and read 23093 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 299):
From what I understand the A400M carries more troops than the C-17 (116 A400M, 102 C-17). The C-17 and A400M both have 54 seats permanently installed sidewall seats.

Also when transporting troops and payload, I thought they were very similar, the A400M has the 54 troops on the sidewalls, and 9 pallet positions, I thought the C-17 was the same.

Do you know what the max payload on the C-17 is at 2.5 g, the numbers you are quoting I think are for 2.25g or lower.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):

600 ft? Sounds low, are you sure? Of course empty weights usually don't matter too much.

The chart that I got the info from is in my reply 294, I agree it sounds low. Even it if was 600m, that is still well below what the C-17 or C-130J can do.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 296):
I have different data. A400M website says the height of the cargo hold height under the wing is 12ft 7 in; C-17 under the wing is 12 ft 8 in (source is loadmaster sitting next to me) . Max height for A400M is 13 ft 1 in, max for C-17 is 15 ft 8in. I know I've seen that graphic that shows the A400M a bit taller, it just doesn't check with my numbers.

The A400M forward cargo hold is 3.85m, the C-17 is published at 3.76 m

"height - 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters) forward of the wing"

from http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/cargo/c17.html

Cargo Compartment: length, 88 feet (26.82 meters); width, 18 feet (5.48 meters); height, 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters)

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86

and this correlates with what EADS is saying.

What I have read is that the C-17 and A400M can both take the CH-47 and AH-64 to the same level of disassembly due to their similar cargo hold heights.

Your entire post seems to state that the A400M is a direct competitor to the C-17, something which a lot of it's supporters in this thread have been trying to deny, based on your figures I would have to say that the C-17 is way overpriced and the US Air Force would do well to abandon the a/c in favour of the A400M, national pride would be the only selling point for the C-17, or am I missing something?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2009-12-26 12:26:27 and read 23087 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 320):
would have to say that the C-17 is way overpriced and the US Air Force would do well to abandon the a/c in favour of the A400M, national pride would be the only selling point for the C-17, or am I missing something?

That about says it all, US Air Force and national pride. Powerful Forces at work there.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-26 15:09:09 and read 23031 times.



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 318):
A400M designed in Europe, built in the US. If the tanker deal is so good for the US, this should be great for EADS/Europe. Do you think that will work?,

Only if Boeing managed the program, then it would make money.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 319):
1500 Herc are operated by 60 airforce (of 2100 produced)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules#Operators

Then there are hundreds of illiushin and Antonov around. The average age of these thousands is probably above 20 years. They might fly forever or simply never be replaced.

Of course hundreds will be replaced by the 4x as big C-17s in tactical roles and even more by hundreds of similar sized new C130s and KC390s (LM considers doubling its C-130J production rate of one aircraft a month.)

Still it is maybe possible the A400 might sell another 400-500 in the next 20 yrs. Competition in this mid segment maybe isn't as furious as some think.

You forgot the Japanese C-X. You also forgot the possible C-130X, both of which would be direct competitors to the A-400M. The KC-390 would also be offered in both versions, the KC-390 and the C-390.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 320):
Your entire post seems to state that the A400M is a direct competitor to the C-17, something which a lot of it's supporters in this thread have been trying to deny, based on your figures I would have to say that the C-17 is way overpriced and the US Air Force would do well to abandon the a/c in favour of the A400M, national pride would be the only selling point for the C-17, or am I missing something?

Yeah, you are missing something...................  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2009-12-26 22:21:38 and read 22958 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 322):

You forgot the Japanese C-X. You also forgot the possible C-130X, both of which would be direct competitors to the A-400M. The KC-390 would also be offered in both versions, the KC-390 and the C-390.

The Japanese C-X ain't going to be exported, the Japs are pretty sensitive regarding military exports...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Cargotanker
Posted 2009-12-26 23:11:35 and read 22938 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 320):
Your entire post seems to state that the A400M is a direct competitor to the C-17, something which a lot of it's supporters in this thread have been trying to deny, based on your figures I would have to say that the C-17 is way overpriced and the US Air Force would do well to abandon the a/c in favour of the A400M, national pride would be the only selling point for the C-17, or am I missing something?

I think that you're missing some recent decisions the UK has made in terms of price, capability, national pride, and jobs. The UK has a little at stake with the A400M, and it looks like they would rather spend their scarce resources on the C-17 instead of the A400M. They recently ordered one additional C-17, and may even get another. However, they'll probably reduce their purchases of the A400M from 25 to 19. I think that tells you which aircraft is over priced and which one offers better capability for the money. Keep in mind that unlike any of us here, the UK MoD does know how much each acft will cost and how capable each acft is.

If it wasn't for UK pride and jobs (which are perfectly acceptable reasons), I bet the UK would dump the overpriced A400M altogether and buy 10-12 additional C-17s.

For nations that are looking for true a strategic airlift aircraft that has relevant tactical capabilities, the C-17 has no competition. Cost and AR capability are the only significant benefits I see the A400M offering, and I'm not sure how significant the cost is based on continued increases in the cost of the A400M.

Also, nations that don't even need the C-17, like Qatar and UAE, are buying them while South Africa is dumping the A400M.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...dline=UAE%20C-17%20Deal%20Advances

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-12-27 05:14:46 and read 22857 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 322):
Yeah, you are missing something...................



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 324):
I think that you're missing some recent decisions the UK has made in terms of price, capability, national pride, and jobs.

I guess I'm missing the line something to do with numbers and statistics. We have an entire thread where its supporters state the A400M and the C-17 are in different classes and not direct competitors, then we have a post comparing numbers side by side and they sure look like competitors, are we playing with numbers or what? If politicians and lay persons are shown these numbers or those posted by KC135TopBoom and others what are they supposed to think? Guess we are back to spider charts and other such charts, it leads one to the inevitable conclusion that purchases of military equipment have nothing to do with their military capabilities, too hard to understand.
Now number of jobs, states where they will be built, concessions to OEM, potential revenue and tax streams, those are numbers regular folks can understand.
Bummer  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-27 05:53:02 and read 22974 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 324):
For nations that are looking for true a strategic airlift aircraft that has relevant tactical capabilities, the C-17 has no competition

Exactly. And that makes it an extremely lousy C-130/ Transall Replacement.

The C-17 has poor soft field performance, high operating & purchasing costs, no (heli & fast jet) tank capabilities or the required civil certification.

Can anyone dream up an Airforce that replaced C-130's by C-17s.?

I can't. Maybe it is non sense.



The successful foreign C-17 sales, maybe 4 here, another one there. That's it. I wonder if Boeing (& congress) are keeping the Long Beech line open and what margins are made with those deals..

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-27 06:36:19 and read 22939 times.



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 323):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 322):

You forgot the Japanese C-X. You also forgot the possible C-130X, both of which would be direct competitors to the A-400M. The KC-390 would also be offered in both versions, the KC-390 and the C-390.

The Japanese C-X ain't going to be exported, the Japs are pretty sensitive regarding military exports...

I believe the Japanese also want an export, civilian version of the C-X (and P-X). These could be sold to Air Forces as civilian aircraft modified back into military aircraft.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/yp-x.htm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 326):
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 324):
For nations that are looking for true a strategic airlift aircraft that has relevant tactical capabilities, the C-17 has no competition

Exactly. And that makes it an extremely lousy C-130/ Transall Replacement.

The C-17 has poor soft field performance, high operating & purchasing costs, no (heli & fast jet) tank capabilities or the required civil certification.

Can anyone dream up an Airforce that replaced C-130's by C-17s.?

Who here suggested the C-17 as a C-130 or C-160 replacement? Who says a civilian certification is required, except you?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 326):
The successful foreign C-17 sales, maybe 4 here, another one there. That's it. I wonder if Boeing (& congress) are keeping the Long Beech line open and what margins are made with those deals..

Well, I beleive the RAF now has 7 or 8 ordered, India is about to order 10 C-17s. Once the India order is firmed up, that will be 30 exported aircraft. more than the total orders for the A-330MRTT (currently at 28 aircraft).

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-27 06:52:49 and read 22926 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 325):
I guess I'm missing the line something to do with numbers and statistics. We have an entire thread where its supporters state the A400M and the C-17 are in different classes and not direct competitors, then we have a post comparing numbers side by side and they sure look like competitors, are we playing with numbers or what?

No one really knows what an A400M is or what one costs till the EADS and the customers reach agreement.

Some people here are fixated on what the A400M was supposed to be, years ago, in terms of price, performance and functionality, and the reality is that no one knows what it will end up being till the renegotiated deal is signed and the resulting airplanes are produced.

Note even that renegotiated deal could have cost overruns given the things they will learn on 3 years of flight testing.

The original premise was half a C-17 at half the price, and that just can't happen unless EADS swallows the cost overruns, which it has staunchly refused to do, and won't ever happen as long as France has a vote on it. So we will see costlier A400Ms.

As for performance, the French Senate report was pretty damning. On the other hand, EADS will have a few years to correct those things, but on the other side, correcting those things will drive up cost even more.

With time it seems clear the A400M will approximate the C-17's price. How could it not? It has all new engines that need debugging, all-new composite technology wings, just as many complicated systems as does C-17, if not more (i.e. C-17 is not a tanker). The C-17 was made with off the shelf engines and bog standard construction techniques. The fact that it's larger should not be a large driver of cost.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-28 06:53:48 and read 22731 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 328):
No one really knows what an A400M is or what one costs till the EADS and the customers reach agreement.

Nor, does anyone know when that will be. The "time limit" for the renegotiations was recently extended, again, this time to the end of January (2010?). It seems to me that because the European customers keep extending the deadline for negotiations, that EADS has not come off of their demands, and the customers cannot afford the reduced capabilities with an increased price. This has now become purely a numbers game bvetween EADS and the 7 European customers, but then again it really always has been that.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 328):
Some people here are fixated on what the A400M was supposed to be, years ago, in terms of price, performance and functionality, and the reality is that no one knows what it will end up being till the renegotiated deal is signed and the resulting airplanes are produced.

Note even that renegotiated deal could have cost overruns given the things they will learn on 3 years of flight testing.

The original premise was half a C-17 at half the price, and that just can't happen unless EADS swallows the cost overruns, which it has staunchly refused to do, and won't ever happen as long as France has a vote on it. So we will see costlier A400Ms.

All of that is correct. But, as long as EADS exercises its employment grip on the European customers, EADS will get what it wants as far as unit pricing and capabilities are concerned. To me it seems, EADS is more interested in building the capabilities it can now build into the A-400M, rather than the capabilities the customers demand and at the price they demand.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 328):
As for performance, the French Senate report was pretty damning. On the other hand, EADS will have a few years to correct those things, but on the other side, correcting those things will drive up cost even more.

I agree, the price can only go up from wherever it is today. Can the capability and performance go to where the EU Air Forces want? Eventually yes, but now the question is how long will it take to get there, at what price, and will a sub-capable airplane do for now?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-28 12:25:11 and read 22648 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 329):
All of that is correct. But, as long as EADS exercises its employment grip on the European customers, EADS will get what it wants as far as unit pricing and capabilities are concerned. To me it seems, EADS is more interested in building the capabilities it can now build into the A-400M, rather than the capabilities the customers demand and at the price they demand.

Its an interesting topic.

Does a defense contractor make more money via phased delivery like Eurofighter or not?

Seems like more opportunities to hit up the taxpayers for more money, no?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 329):
I agree, the price can only go up from wherever it is today. Can the capability and performance go to where the EU Air Forces want? Eventually yes, but now the question is how long will it take to get there, at what price, and will a sub-capable airplane do for now?

Certainly with enough time and money Airbus will get it right.

Itll be interesting to see if A400M ends up being like B-2 and F-22 - they end up with the right technology but the wrong economics.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-28 14:58:49 and read 22600 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 330):
Does a defense contractor make more money via phased delivery like Eurofighter or not?

Seems like more opportunities to hit up the taxpayers for more money, no?

In the US, yes, the OEM can make more money. In the US these phases are called blocks, each block a slight improvement over pervious blocks, but not enough of an improvement to make it a seperate model. Something like that could be a different engine, but not always as in the F-15s and F-16s fly with either a P&W engine or a GE engine for the same model.

I don't know for sure with Europe, but my guess is it is the same. Phase modifications are useually called trances. They are usually bigger improvements than the US block improvement, about what we would call a model level improvement

Quoting Revelation (Reply 330):
Certainly with enough time and money Airbus will get it right.

Itll be interesting to see if A400M ends up being like B-2 and F-22 - they end up with the right technology but the wrong economics.

With enough time and money I could get the A-400M right, but I think EADS will need a lot less time than me.

But the B-2 and F-22 are more of examples of poor political timing than economics. Politicians view these two aircraft as "Cold War" aircraft. But politicians do not have forsite to see both of these planes do have a job in future wars.

The A-400M is different from the F-22 and B-2 in that prospective. The European politicians and military leaders do have missions for the A-400M, they just cannot afford them and the question about its performance. But there are alternatives to the A-400M and its mission, where the F-22 and B-2 bring capabilities no other aircraft can do.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Allegro
Posted 2009-12-28 20:35:24 and read 22545 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 316):
And I can't think of any feasible scenario where 660 A400Ms are sold.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 322):
You forgot the Japanese C-X. You also forgot the possible C-130X, both of which would be direct competitors to the A-400M. The KC-390 would also be offered in both versions, the KC-390 and the C-390.

Don't forget the new Chinese airlifter ... seems to be aimed squarely at the A400M. With each passing year the A400M is losing ground to other projects in development ... and it is not going to get better, so 660 planes seems very optimistic.

BTW, UAE did agree to buy 2 more C-17's (2 older orders for Qatar and 2 new orders for the other six UAE states) and 12 C-130J's ... I know there was a link above to AW&ST but from one of my favorite defense web sites:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/UAE-Orders-C-17s-C-130Js-05302/

Also, a bit about the British C-17 v A400M saga:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ed-c17s-add-a-5th-02506/#more-2506

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2009-12-28 20:53:15 and read 22545 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 327):
I believe the Japanese also want an export, civilian version of the C-X (and P-X). These could be sold to Air Forces as civilian aircraft modified back into military aircraft.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...x.htm

The Japanese are remarkably sensitive regarding dual-use hardware. I doubt they will allow the export of a civilianized C-X or P-X if it can be demonstrated that the primary use would be military.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-29 07:44:32 and read 22428 times.



Quoting Allegro (Reply 332):
BTW, UAE did agree to buy 2 more C-17's (2 older orders for Qatar and 2 new orders for the other six UAE states) and 12 C-130J's ... I know there was a link above to AW&ST but from one of my favorite defense web sites:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...5302/

Good news for the C-17 line in Long Beach.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2009-12-29 08:25:46 and read 22406 times.



Quoting Allegro (Reply 332):
Also, a bit about the British C-17 v A400M saga:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ed-c17s-add-a-5th-02506/#more-2506

Interesting. Its reporting the following

Quote:
As has been customary for the UK, price is not disclosed, but past C-17 deals by existing customers have tended to be in the $200-265 million per plane range.

Yet again, from a totally different source we see a figure in the $200 millions, not the 300 to 500 million figures some people like to toss around here.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2009-12-29 08:43:33 and read 22399 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 329):
This has now become purely a numbers game bvetween EADS and the 7 European customers, but then again it really always has been that.

No different to US defence procurement, I guess

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 329):
as long as EADS exercises its employment grip on the European customers, EADS will get what it wants as far as unit pricing and capabilities are concerned

No different to US procurement I guess

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 331):
But the B-2 and F-22 are more of examples of poor political timing than economics

Same thing.  Smile

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-29 16:20:55 and read 22314 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 327):
Who here suggested the C-17 as a C-130 or C-160 replacement?

Some here (like you) suggest the RAF and others better buy C-17s. They are replacing C-130s. Same for the Germans and French..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 309):
What they do to replace the A-400Ms will be significand, I think it will be the C-130J, unless they want the airplanes quickly, then they will take C-17s for delivery with a year to a year and a half.

Then again the fact air forces ordered a few C-17 doesn't exclude them ordering A400M at some point. I think e.g. the Canadians are Australians are not out of the market. Future demonstration tours are scheduled for Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru and the UAE.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 334):
Quoting Allegro (Reply 332):
BTW, UAE did agree to buy 2 more C-17's (2 older orders for Qatar and 2 new orders for the other six UAE states) and 12 C-130J's ... I know there was a link above to AW&ST but from one of my favorite defense web sites:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...5302/

Good news for the C-17 line in Long Beach.

How long of a production period is that?

I am surprised no new transport aircraft has been developed in the USA (Boeing, LM, MD) for the last 25 yrs, while defense R&D budgets are higher then anywhere else.

MD was selected to build the C-17 in 1981, production started in 1985, first flight in 1991. 80 orders was cancelled in 1990, after cost explosions. In April 1994, the C-17 program was still experiencing cost overruns, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. Airflow issues caused problems with parachutes and there were other technical problems with mission software, landing gear, etc. Total costs $43 billion were foreseen for 120 airframes 15 yrs ago. (try recalculate that to 2009 dollars and add 70 additional airframes...  Yeah sure  faint  ) I'm not sure after how many yrs the first export order happened.

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151280.pdf

Still it turned out to be a good aircraft. What I see here on a.net is a strong desire to dismiss / downplay the A400M program in its infancy. Blowing up any problem mentioned by any source while looking the other way when succeses are achieved. Looking at development histories of wildly promoted and heralded aircraft on this site makes me wonder if a small reality check on the A400M might be in place  Wink

The fact the A400m cleared its flight envelope on its second flight last week was obviously less interesting then wild unfounded predictions on possible cancellations. Remarkable.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...lears%20Normal%20Flight%20Envelope

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-12-29 17:05:22 and read 22291 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 337):
I am surprised no new transport aircraft has been developed in the USA (Boeing, LM, MD) for the last 25 yrs, while defense R&D budgets are higher then anywhere else.

Probably has to do with the procurement process where competitions are demanded to somehow reduce cost. The C-17 won and is being produced, until a new competition is announced what incentive is there for an OEM to design a new frame, the next US competitions and by default next cargo design will be for the C5 replacement or a C-130 replacement, my bet is on a C-130 replacement it has more political strings attached, it will look just like the tanker replacement.

It's why the A400M has and will proceed, even though the US has other OEM's who can produce a C-17 alternative the process "prohibits" it, in Europe no other OEM has produced an a/c the size of the A400M so for different reasons there is no alternative, the program will continue.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-30 10:46:37 and read 22204 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 336):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 329):
This has now become purely a numbers game bvetween EADS and the 7 European customers, but then again it really always has been that.

No different to US defence procurement, I guess

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 329):
as long as EADS exercises its employment grip on the European customers, EADS will get what it wants as far as unit pricing and capabilities are concerned

No different to US procurement I guess

Which US OEM can hold us over a barrel by threating to fire its employees?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 337):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 327):
Who here suggested the C-17 as a C-130 or C-160 replacement?

Some here (like you) suggest the RAF and others better buy C-17s. They are replacing C-130s. Same for the Germans and French..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 309):
What they do to replace the A-400Ms will be significand, I think it will be the C-130J, unless they want the airplanes quickly, then they will take C-17s for delivery with a year to a year and a half.

Then again the fact air forces ordered a few C-17 doesn't exclude them ordering A400M at some point. I think e.g. the Canadians are Australians are not out of the market. Future demonstration tours are scheduled for Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru and the UAE.

Read what I said again, I said the C-130J would replace the A-400M. I still think that is what the SAAF is going to do since the CANCELLED the A-400M. I doubt they will go back and re-order it (but stranger things have happened before).

Canada has new CC-130Js on order (that will replace the CC-130E/H), they already have all the CC-175s they need (but can get more, if needed), they also have the CC-150s. Where do they need more airlift? Austraila has C-130Hs that don't need replacing, yet. They just got 4 C-17s and have 5 KC-30s on order (but late). Where do they need more airlift? Malaysia already has the A-400M on order, the RNZAF doesn't have much money, India has already chosen both the C-130J and C-17, as has the UAE. I don't know about Peru, but if they were to buy the A-400M, they would need to get it on the cheap.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 337):
MD was selected to build the C-17 in 1981, production started in 1985, first flight in 1991. 80 orders was cancelled in 1990, after cost explosions. In April 1994, the C-17 program was still experiencing cost overruns, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. Airflow issues caused problems with parachutes and there were other technical problems with mission software, landing gear, etc. Total costs $43 billion were foreseen for 120 airframes 15 yrs ago. (try recalculate that to 2009 dollars and add 70 additional airframes... ) I'm not sure after how many yrs the first export order happened.

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151280.pdf

Why do you insist on using the 1994 GAO report that is no longer valid. BTW, the USAF now has 223 C-17s on order or delivered, not the 190 you suggested (120 + 70). About 190 have been delivered.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 337):
The fact the A400m cleared its flight envelope on its second flight last week was obviously less interesting then wild unfounded predictions on possible cancellations. Remarkable.

That is meaningless. the A-400M is scheduled for a 3 year flight test program, so it reaching a scheduled milestone in the flight test phase is expected. The A-400M has many, many more milestones to fly, this is just the beginning. It is funny how EADS managed to keep the engine problem quiet on flight #1. At least Boeing was forthcoming in the NLG problem they had on Flight #1 of the SECOND B-787 to fly. Boeing has now flown two different B-787s for a total of 3 flights. the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 2010.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Allegro
Posted 2009-12-30 15:38:06 and read 22095 times.

Frankly, if the A400M survives her financial troubles she will succeed. Airbus has always engineered and built fine airplanes ... I think most Americans would agree that the quality of the products are excellent. Oh, you can pick on things but you could do that with Boeing too ...

My worry for this program is that others are creeping into this market. Airbus MIlitary left the door open and others are stepping through ... AFA, the technicals they will sort it out eventually and make her something to be proud of.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 337):
MD was selected to build the C-17 in 1981, production started in 1985, first flight in 1991. 80 orders was cancelled in 1990, after cost explosions

And the original RFP was issued in 1977!!! We used to refer to the MAC (Military airlift command) mafia in Congress ... they (MAC) could get away with anything it seemed. This program too was filled with cluster-you-know-what's ... I had the great pleasure of being an intern at MD in the mid-80's on the C-17 program ... I have great affection for the bird, but it ultimatley turned me off on pursuing a career in aerospace as I could not believe the waste and nonsense going on. Regardless, of that she is one awesome plane today and technologically still a leader, those planes are D@MN hard to engineer. So I suspect 10 years from now we will all be amazed at what the A400M can do. Let's give her a chance to prove it.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Trex8
Posted 2009-12-30 18:52:19 and read 22052 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
Boeing has now flown two different B-787s for a total of 3 flights. the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 201

parce que il est xmas et nouvelle an in my best Franglais

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-12-31 13:42:13 and read 21957 times.



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 341):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
Boeing has now flown two different B-787s for a total of 3 flights. the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 201

parce que il est xmas et nouvelle an in my best Franglais

Not sure what that means, my friend. I don't speak (or read) Franglais. Is that French or German?

If it means the B-787 now has 4 test flights under her belt, I know, she flew again yesterday. But thanks.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2009-12-31 15:40:46 and read 21967 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 342):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 341):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
Boeing has now flown two different B-787s for a total of 3 flights. the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 201

parce que il est xmas et nouvelle an in my best Franglais

Not sure what that means, my friend. I don't speak (or read) Franglais. Is that French or German?

If it means the B-787 now has 4 test flights under her belt, I know, she flew again yesterday. But thanks.

Well either the A400M hit big unexpected problems withheld from the public & EADS is master minding euro plans to somehow extract more secret subsidies from the taxpayer, or bad weather. You be the judge..

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...00Ms%20To%20Join%20Flight%20Trials

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 2010.

? who told you that ?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Trex8
Posted 2009-12-31 15:53:58 and read 21959 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 342):
Not sure what that means

for the rednecks amongst us it means those lousy lazy Europeans were on holiday from xmas through the new year which is probably the reason the A400M only flew once between Dec 17th and the new year!

well we never managed to get anything done in London between Xmas and new year and no one in Washington seemed to be able to understand why and thought we were goofing off, not the case, we showed up to work every day, just no one from the UK MOD or NATO did so nothing got done!  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: ArabAirX
Posted 2010-01-01 08:22:17 and read 21828 times.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aErjIVe4aym0

Seems Airbus is asking for more state aid or Mr Enders has threatened to terminate the project.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-01 14:47:02 and read 21706 times.



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 345):
Seems Airbus is asking for more state aid or Mr Enders has threatened to terminate the project.

The odds are good he'll get everything he wants. What's the alternative? Will the member governments walk away? No.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-01 17:40:31 and read 21678 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 337):

MD was selected to build the C-17 in 1981, production started in 1985, first flight in 1991. 80 orders was cancelled in 1990, after cost explosions. In April 1994, the C-17 program was still experiencing cost overruns, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. Airflow issues caused problems with parachutes and there were other technical problems with mission software, landing gear, etc. Total costs $43 billion were foreseen for 120 airframes 15 yrs ago. (try recalculate that to 2009 dollars and add 70 additional airframes... Yeah sure faint ) I'm not sure after how many yrs the first export order happened.

What I see here on a.net is a strong desire to dismiss / downplay the A400M program in its infancy. Blowing up any problem mentioned by any source while looking the other way when succeses are achieved. Looking at development histories of wildly promoted and heralded aircraft on this site makes me wonder if a small reality check on the A400M might be in place

Lets try not to be emotional and read into peoples desires, etc, lets try to just deal with the issues themselves, no?

And one great falsehood is just because C17 went one way then the A400M will go the same way. Keep in mind A12 was cancelled, VH71 has been stopped for reevaluation, and B2 and F22 have never been built out to the originally projected numbers. All of these remain perfectly plausable outcomes for A400M.

Much of the R&D explosion you talked about happened during the Happy Days of the Reagan defense buildup then the nice Internet Boom helped finance the overruns.

What will happen with A400M now?

We keep seeing comments like dont worry the money will be found, but from where?

Will FR and DE just start closing bases like the UK has just so A400M can take more funds?

We keep hearing comments like bad things happened to other programs too, but that is meaningless, totally meaningless.

Different times, different players, different everything.

If there is something concrete to be offered other than lets not worry, then lets have it!

If theres some concrete ideas about this program that doesnt leverage what happened with other programs, lets have them!

Or if theres a concrete idea or some good speculation about where the 5B EUR will come from, then lets have it!

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 345):
Seems Airbus is asking for more state aid or Mr Enders has threatened to terminate the project.

Interesting link. Seems to be saying what we already knew, that A400M is needing at least a 25% increase for the 180 planes to be made. The only difference here is that it now Herr Enders who is saying it.

But the following statement seems to be news:

Quote:
Instead of increasing the order value, governments may also reduce the number of planes they buy if they agree to purchase the remaining transport planes later

Enders is saying, for instance, UK doesnt need to add any more money to the pot right now, but must agree to eventually buy all 25 planes at the 25% or more higher cost?

If so, that would be new. Up to this point Airbus did not say this.

In essence Airbus is saying we have to have ALL the money, so all the customers must buy ALL the planes at the increased price, the only thing open to negotiation is when these planes need to be bought.

Being in Germany this New Years Eve I can tell you the Germans really love to set off fireworks for the New Years. So it seems Herr Enders has lit a few New Years firecrackers of his own.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 346):
The odds are good he'll get everything he wants. What's the alternative? Will the member governments walk away? No.

I dont see a way forward.

UK is saying just build as many planes as you can for the 20B EUR but we dont have any more money to add to the pot. Theyre already pulling the belt tight.

DE was offering no compromise at all on functionality or price.

FR was offering a blank check.

Enders is saying hes preparing to quit the project.

Where is the middle ground?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-01 17:46:29 and read 21688 times.



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 344):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 342):
Not sure what that means

for the rednecks amongst us it means those lousy lazy Europeans were on holiday from xmas through the new year which is probably the reason the A400M only flew once between Dec 17th and the new year!

Thanks, that makes sense.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 343):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 2010.

? who told you that ?

EADS.

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 345):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aErjIVe4aym0

Seems Airbus is asking for more state aid or Mr Enders has threatened to terminate the project.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 346):
The odds are good he'll get everything he wants. What's the alternative? Will the member governments walk away? No.

Yes, he will get all of it. terminating the A-400M program means a lot of lost jobs, even though full rate production has not started, yet.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-01 19:10:02 and read 21668 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 348):
terminating the A-400M program means a lot of lost jobs, even though full rate production has not started, yet.

We thus are talking about many potential jobs as opposed to many real jobs.

Itd seem to me the best way forward would be then to do as much of the labor intensive work for the relatively fixed amount of money available. Assemble lots of frames with the minimum features, no? Politicians get jobs, Airbus gets money, all is good, no?

The problem with that way forward is that it doesnt make enough profit for Airbus, IMHO.

Enders has the responsibility of not just making airplanes but also making profits.

Airbus wants in essence 25B EUR guaranteed. They are willing to be a bit flexible on the timing of the deliveries and thus the payments, but not much else.

However I think in this climate Airbus will have to give up something. The governments have lots of levers they can pull like threatening to withhold launch aid if things get that ugly.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-01-02 04:53:49 and read 21563 times.



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 307):
My apologies, I made a math error. I was told (and read) 148 inches under the wing. I converted to 12' 8", it actually is 12' 4". You can see why I hate converting units...LOL

Can I introduce you to a neat feature of SI units. They are decimal, not base 12. So if it was 148 whatevers and needed to up a level, it would indeed be 12.8 in SI.  sarcastic  Your swerve now!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 349):
The problem with that way forward is that it doesnt make enough profit for Airbus, IMHO.

Hang on that cannot be right, Airbus is only a socialized job creation scheme so profits cannot come into the matter.  sarcastic  (Again)

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2010-01-02 05:15:29 and read 21687 times.

I start to wonder if some folks here know and understand the need and requirements of the European airforces that let to the A400M. Looking at the alternative scenarios suggested here I can only conclude you do not take them serious at all..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 347):
Lets try not to be emotional and read into peoples desires, etc, lets try to just deal with the issues themselves, no?

 checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 348):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 344):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 342):
Not sure what that means

for the rednecks amongst us it means those lousy lazy Europeans were on holiday from xmas through the new year which is probably the reason the A400M only flew once between Dec 17th and the new year!

Thanks, that makes sense.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 348):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 343):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
the A-400M will not fly again before mid January 2010.

? who told you that ?

EADS.

KC135Topboom, I guess you must have had a computer glitch. The article I linked in reply 343 clear states the weather issue (related to prop test sensors) as a reason why flights were postponed around x-mas.

Anyway what Enders asks is nothing new as far as I can see. Just further negotiations.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 347):
We keep hearing comments like bad things happened to other programs too, but that is meaningless, totally meaningless.

Different times, different players, different everything.

Does the concept of "Double Standards" ring any bells?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-02 06:56:44 and read 21651 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 350):
Hang on that cannot be right, Airbus is only a socialized job creation scheme so profits cannot come into the matter.

From what Ive been told Airbus uses less employees per airplane built than does Boeing Commercial, so they seem to have lost the plot line!

No doubt Airbus is a favored child of the sponser governments, but no doubt Boeing is too. We are mainly debating how hard each sucks on the governmental teat.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 351):
Does the concept of "Double Standards" ring any bells?

Not sure who you are referring to but I try not to.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-02 16:54:32 and read 21495 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 349):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 348):
terminating the A-400M program means a lot of lost jobs, even though full rate production has not started, yet.


We thus are talking about many potential jobs as opposed to many real jobs.

Correct. Most of the production jobs don't exsist yet.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 349):
Itd seem to me the best way forward would be then to do as much of the labor intensive work for the relatively fixed amount of money available. Assemble lots of frames with the minimum features, no? Politicians get jobs, Airbus gets money, all is good, no?

No, I think you are wrong as it ignors the customers, the Air Forces of Europe. EADS agreed in 2005 they could build the A-400M to the contract specs and capabilities, at the price agreed to. Now, because of their own mismagement of the program they are 25% in the hole and cannot build in the capabilities they agreed to. So, what EADS and some EU politicians agree to a more expensive aircraft with less capability than what the military needs.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 349):
The problem with that way forward is that it doesnt make enough profit for Airbus, IMHO.

Enders has the responsibility of not just making airplanes but also making profits.

EADS has an inroad to the EU checkbooks, the EU has paid for developing every airplane they have. Enders doesn't seem concerned about profits on other lines, like the A-380 or A-340 lines. He is picking a battle with the very governments that signed all the other checks for EADS/Airbus.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 349):
Airbus wants in essence 25B EUR guaranteed. They are willing to be a bit flexible on the timing of the deliveries and thus the payments, but not much else.

The question remains, will another 5B Euros fix the program that is mismanaged already?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 349):
However I think in this climate Airbus will have to give up something. The governments have lots of levers they can pull like threatening to withhold launch aid if things get that ugly.

That will not happen, Enders holds all the Aces in this deck with the threat of laying employees off.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 351):
I start to wonder if some folks here know and understand the need and requirements of the European airforces that let to the A400M. Looking at the alternative scenarios suggested here I can only conclude you do not take them serious at all..

Why should we? EADS and your own politicians are ready to sell those requirements down the road.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 351):
Anyway what Enders asks is nothing new as far as I can see. Just further negotiations.

Ransom money is not "further negotiations".

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2010-01-03 01:48:33 and read 21426 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
KC135TopBoom

 Yeah sure Oops. it seems non sense, unfounded aquisations and a strong dislike of anything non Boeing / LM is taking over..

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-03 04:23:34 and read 21383 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 354):
Oops. it seems non sense, unfounded aquisations and a strong dislike of anything non Boeing / LM is taking over..

Then why don't you show him the error of his ways?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
. So, what EADS and some EU politicians agree to a more expensive aircraft with less capability than what the military needs.

From what I've read the discussion is not centering on procuring fewer of those aircraft, even with a USD$5billion cash infusion. The rest of the original buy will be deferred to the out years and additional funding sought.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-01-03 05:42:55 and read 21368 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 352):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 350):
Hang on that cannot be right, Airbus is only a socialized job creation scheme so profits cannot come into the matter.

From what Ive been told Airbus uses less employees per airplane built than does Boeing Commercial, so they seem to have lost the plot line!

I know, they are just clueless are they not! Which means of course they probably are not too good at getting the best of the teat either. No hope at all I fear.  angel 

So it is a miracle the thing actually flew. Wonder if they really can develop it into something else as well. Seems a monster waste to have those giant egg beaters twirling away on a small number of transports. Mind you, I would sooner not be overflown by them too often. Might bring back memories of the B-36 - the ground used to quake long before you actually heard them let alone saw them.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-03 06:48:46 and read 21364 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 354):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
KC135TopBoom

Oops. it seems non sense, unfounded aquisations and a strong dislike of anything non Boeing / LM is taking over..



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 355):
Then why don't you show him the error of his ways?

Because he cannot. Keesje will not acknowledge the faults of anything EADS/Airbus/Airbus Military. Nor, will he acknowledge the wants and needs of the European Military Forces are getting pushed off the table just to build an airplane and jobs program.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 355):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
. So, what EADS and some EU politicians agree to a more expensive aircraft with less capability than what the military needs.

From what I've read the discussion is not centering on procuring fewer of those aircraft, even with a USD$5billion cash infusion. The rest of the original buy will be deferred to the out years and additional funding sought.

Correct, except it is 5B Euros, which is close to $7.5B US. Has anyone noticed the "deferred" airplanes do not have any date set for when, or if, they will be built?

EADS's biggest problem is not if the airplane will enter production, or even if they will get their demanded 5B Euros to continue the developement. EADS will get its demands from Europe, even if it means changing country orders to lower numbers, as well as less capability. It is the capability of the A-400M and what those capabilities, or lack of them, will do to any possible future international sales. If an international customer is looking for a 30 tonne capable military cargo aircraft, they could order the A-400M IF the price comes down, significantly. If not, they will simply order C-17s(more capability for about the same price), C-130Js (slightly less capability for a significantly lower price), or the C-X (about the same original A-400M capability of 37 tonnes for a significantly lower price).

Quoting Baroque (Reply 356):
So it is a miracle the thing actually flew. Wonder if they really can develop it into something else as well. Seems a monster waste to have those giant egg beaters twirling away on a small number of transports. Mind you, I would sooner not be overflown by them too often.

I don't think it is a miracle the A-400M actually flew. I think it will be a miracle if it ever gets to its original 37 tonne capability and the other mission capabilities originally promised (air refueling, etc.)

Quoting Baroque (Reply 356):
Might bring back memories of the B-36 - the ground used to quake long before you actually heard them let alone saw them.

SAC always like to make a big introduction when it came on the stage.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-05 02:36:56 and read 20991 times.

Reports in the media today indicate that Tom Enders has upped the ante by threatening to walk away from the program. This threat worked in the last tanker bid and might work again for the latest re-bid. Why not try it on the A400?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE6040K620100105?rpc=44

Quote:

PARIS/FRANKFURT, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Airbus set itself on a possible collision course with the German government on Tuesday by signalling it was ready to walk away from a delayed 20 billion euro military plane project in a row over costs.

A source close to the planemaker said its chief executive was growing impatient over the impact on its jetliner business of the failure so far to agree a budget deal for the A400M transporter, which is dogged by delays and soaring costs.

"Tom Enders is not willing to put the civil aviation business at Airbus at stake for the A400M," a source close to the company told Reuters.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2010-01-05 03:48:08 and read 20942 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 358):
Why not try it on the A400?

Expect some euro politician striking back with an even more dramatic idea.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: NorCal
Posted 2010-01-05 06:48:19 and read 20809 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 359):
Expect some euro politician striking back with an even more dramatic idea.

A blank check?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-05 09:04:15 and read 20686 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 358):
Reports in the media today indicate that Tom Enders has upped the ante by threatening to walk away from the program.

Yes, but I'm not reading much new from the earlier report as follows:

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 345):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aErjIVe4aym0

Seems Airbus is asking for more state aid or Mr Enders has threatened to terminate the project.

My commentary at the time was:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 347):
In essence Airbus is saying we have to have ALL the money, so all the customers must buy ALL the planes at the increased price, the only thing open to negotiation is when these planes need to be bought.

Being in Germany this New Years Eve I can tell you the Germans really love to set off fireworks for the New Years. So it seems Herr Enders has lit a few New Years firecrackers of his own.

And it seems Herr Enders is indeed playing hardball.

One interesting quote from the new article:

Quote:
But some executives involved in the project have floated the idea it would be better to swallow the penalties now and free up engineering resources for the next big civil challenge, the mid-sized A350, and stemming continued problems on the A380.

Seems strange to be suggesting that designing the A350 and ramping up the A380 are more challenging than forecast, no? Given that, how should the customers feel about how the rest of the A400M program will go?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: 11Bravo
Posted 2010-01-05 12:07:18 and read 20566 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 358):
Reports in the media today indicate that Tom Enders has upped the ante by threatening to walk away from the program. This threat worked in the last tanker bid and might work again for the latest re-bid. Why not try it on the A400?

EADS isn't going to walk away from this program.  Yeah sure The Airbus countries and customers will pay most of what Enders is asking for and what's left will get written off. This is all bark and no bite. I don't believe for one second that France and Germany would allow this project to be terminated. Short of some irreparable catastrophic accident in the flight test program, this program will continue regardless of increased cost, reduced demand, or degraded performance.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: BlackProjects
Posted 2010-01-05 13:21:46 and read 20506 times.

AFP are reporting that EADS is looking at walking away from the A400M Project.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ALeqM5g-JYDMxcRjkPV1NZ34BcemUNWvGw

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-05 14:08:40 and read 20470 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 350):
Hang on that cannot be right, Airbus is only a socialized job creation scheme so profits cannot come into the matter.

Maybe Enders is trying to tank the stock price so he can man a million or so EUR selling his options short like Forgeard did?  stirthepot 

In any case, I can imagine that even a socialist (and I'm not saying Enders is one) would like to tell their boss that they're spending 100M EUR a month (or more, now that flight testing is on and it's time to start paying for the equipment for the first six er five frames) with no end in sight.

Personally, I feel the executives at EADS have the same primary goal as executives everywhere: to make as much money for themselves as possible. Things like employing others and making products they are proud of are also goals too, just not the primary one. And just like executives everywhere, they are willing to take as much from the public till as they can get, and want it with as few strings attached as possible.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 362):
This is all bark and no bite.

Probably, but what else can Enders say that would get things moving?

The Reuters article says:

Quote:
A similar deadlock that saw Britain isolated over the Eurofighter combat jet last year was lifted only after contacts between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, defence sources say.

It could very well take such a high-stakes summit to get things unstuck, but that could take months to arrange given there are more players involved here. Meanwhile, each month that goes by sees another 100M EUR fly out the window. It can't be doing good for Enders's stomach lining.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-05 14:56:07 and read 20438 times.



Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 362):
The Airbus countries and customers will pay most of what Enders is asking for and what's left will get written off.

We are in disagreement. I maintain they'll pay ALL--and probably more!  Wink

Speaking of which, two new sources for cost increases in the media today. This one's from the FT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfb12870-f9f1-11de-adb4-00144feab49a.html

Quote:
EADS estimates the programme will cost a third more than first envisaged, with a further €11.3bn in funds needed, bringing the total cost of the project to €31bn.

At USD$1.44 to the euro that's over USD$44.5 billion dollars. No guarantee that costs won't increase further.

Here's a piece from GLG that's even grimmer.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Airbus-A...h-Would-Benefit-A350XWB-45748.html

Quote:
Despite making its first flight late last month, the political posturing over the A400M may soon come to an end if the project is terminated.

Costs have risen to almost €28bn (or $40bn) and EADS still holds it hand out for another €7bn to make the program viable. Tom Enders is a smart guy – he knows that EADS’ lifeline is stuck to the whopping 80% of revenue generated by the Airbus operation.

That would make it €35billion!

How many airplanes are currently on order?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-05 15:40:11 and read 20418 times.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 359):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 358):
Why not try it on the A400?

Expect some euro politician striking back with an even more dramatic idea.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 360):
A blank check?

Yeah, from the French, but it seems the Brits and Germans are holding firm.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 361):
Given that, how should the customers feel about how the rest of the A400M program will go?

Collect the delay penalties from EADS and rush to order C-130Js and C-17A/ERs?

Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 363):
AFP are reporting that EADS is looking at walking away from the A400M Project.

I still think it is a bluff

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 365):
How many airplanes are currently on order?

180 from 7 EU Countries and 4 from Malaysia = 184 total.

Can the Mods lock this thread and begin a Part #2? This one is very long and it looks like many more debates are to come.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-05 16:12:08 and read 20401 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 365):
This one's from the FT.

I think it'd be better to give a bit more context:

Quote:

EADS estimates the programme will cost a third more than first envisaged, with a further €11.3bn in funds needed, bringing the total cost of the project to €31bn.

The company wants the partner governments – Germany, France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey – to accept a 25 per cent price increase, equal to €5.3bn.

EADS, which has already taken a write-off of €2.4bn, will then absorb the extra risk cost of €3.6bn, which it hopes to bring down by running the programme more efficiently.

The program would cost the customers €25bn, and would cost EADS €6bn for a total of €31bn.

Quite eye watering, if you ask me.

Walking away will be costly:

Quote:
Analysts warned that abandoning the programme would be costly for the aircraft maker, which would have to repay €5.7bn in development funding under the original programme contract.

EADS is looking at paying out €5.7bn (on top of the €2.4bn they've already eaten) to walk away (presumably subject to some negotiation) versus accepting risk of €3.6bn to continue.

I guess that's what points to this all being posturing, because it seems there's no way EADS would want to write the check for €5.7bn nor would it seem realistic for the customer nations to want to make EADS do so.

Hope everyone has a good stock of popcorn at hand!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-06 02:15:09 and read 20220 times.

Bloomberg reports that the German government is still holding the line--for now. Frankly, the whole drama unfolding in the media seems anti-climatic to me. They'll pay; so will the others.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aKSxqmUYLvS0

Quote:
Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Germany’s government isn’t prepared to pay more for Airbus SAS’s A400M military transport plane than is stipulated in the contract, Handelsblatt reported, citing unidentified people at the German defense ministry.

The government agreed to pay an additional 650 million euros ($933 million) to cover price increases, on top of the original cost of 6 billion euros, the newspaper said.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-06 02:55:59 and read 20200 times.

Interesting take on possible outcome for the RAF:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
London is believed to have provided a surprisingly sympathetic ear – though it is not thought to have been able to provide any additional funding. Instead the UK is expected to drop the number of aircraft to be purchased from 25 to between 14-19 aircraft, though the overall funding level will remain the same.

That's quite a deal, pay the same for 6 to 9 less aircraft. If true, will the same math apply to the French, Spanish, and German orders as well?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2010-01-06 03:30:34 and read 20186 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 369):
That's quite a deal, pay the same for 6 to 9 less aircraft. If true, will the same math apply to the French, Spanish, and German orders as well?

If the same "math" is used by the other EU countries, the problem is probably solved, now they just have to deal with any non-EU orders. If this math does not fly, a way will have to be found to get the additional funding, we are seeing articles and quotes from company execs and various politicians, we also need to hear what the man in the street is saying, this is after all about their jobs and standard of living.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-06 04:37:52 and read 20134 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 370):
If the same "math" is used by the other EU countries, the problem is probably solved

I don't think so.

The big problem is the huge overrun of the development budget, and cutting production costs only goes so far to cover that. EADS has already said so:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 347):
Instead of increasing the order value, governments may also reduce the number of planes they buy if they agree to purchase the remaining transport planes later.

EADS needs guarantees that all the money will be coming, but it seems the UK is not able to make such an agreement.

If this approach not is taken you end up with a situation similar to B2. There they cut the production run from approx 80 frames to 20 frames and the cost of each frame skyrocketed to 2B USD each, much of which went to cover the huge R+D budget.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-01-06 05:17:46 and read 20108 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 364):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 350):
Hang on that cannot be right, Airbus is only a socialized job creation scheme so profits cannot come into the matter.

Maybe Enders is trying to tank the stock price so he can man a million or so EUR selling his options short like Forgeard did?

Surely if he was shorting and about to give bad news he would be buying and not selling, or have I got the wrong end of the stick - again!  eyepopping  Mind you by now I have totally forgotten what Enders may or may not be threatening so I cannot figure out if the stock would rise or fall.

Mind you just keeping going should be taken as a positive these days, esp by comparison with the car industry.

Europe needs the A400M to add to its collection of Concorde, ? the A345/6 and the A380.  duck  Of course before the A300, the only European plane to have paid much in the way of returns was the Viscount. So the average has still been raised to levels that are barely recognisable.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-06 06:01:58 and read 20078 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 369):
Interesting take on possible outcome for the RAF:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
London is believed to have provided a surprisingly sympathetic ear – though it is not thought to have been able to provide any additional funding. Instead the UK is expected to drop the number of aircraft to be purchased from 25 to between 14-19 aircraft, though the overall funding level will remain the same.

That's quite a deal, pay the same for 6 to 9 less aircraft. If true, will the same math apply to the French, Spanish, and German orders as well?

That would be a cut of 6-11 airplanes for the RAF. But to put it into a real prospective, that is a cut of 1-2 RAF Airlift squadrons, along with basing costs. I think Germany and the UK is serously considering cutting their current losses in the A-400M program and cancelling for their partisipation. If that happens, the A-400M program is dead. Germany currently has 60 aircraft and the UK has 25 aircraft on order. Collectively that is nearly half of the remaining orders of 184 total airplanes.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 368):
Bloomberg reports that the German government is still holding the line--for now. Frankly, the whole drama unfolding in the media seems anti-climatic to me. They'll pay; so will the others.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aKSxqmUYLvS0

Quote:
Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Germany’s government isn’t prepared to pay more for Airbus SAS’s A400M military transport plane than is stipulated in the contract, Handelsblatt reported, citing unidentified people at the German defense ministry.

The government agreed to pay an additional 650 million euros ($933 million) to cover price increases, on top of the original cost of 6 billion euros, the newspaper said.

The Germans are showing EADS that not only national pride and employment are driving the EADS A-400M program, but economic realities do too.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 370):
If the same "math" is used by the other EU countries, the problem is probably solved, now they just have to deal with any non-EU orders.

No, that will not solve the problem as their is also a good possibility of future program costs increases, too.

The only remaining "non-EU" order is the 4 A-400Ms for Malaysia. They held EADS to their original contract price or they would have walked just as South Africa did. For the sake of any possible future international sales, EADS agreed to Malaysia's demands, hoping the EU countries will pick up the extra costs of the Malaysia, thus helping to get additional international sales. EADS could simply not afford, politically, to have their only remaining international customer cancel after the very public finger pointing over why the SAAF canceled, which was the increasing costs.

I am expecting the RAF to cancel their order, followed by the Luftwaffe, thus giving EADS a political reason to cancel the A-400M.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 371):
EADS needs guarantees that all the money will be coming, but it seems the UK is not able to make such an agreement.

No, it is not simply that EADS "needs a guarantee", it is more like they are "demanding a guarantee" of a profit from the A-400M. EADS is taking huge losses on the A-380 program (which from a pure business case they should also consider cancelling), as well as future developement costs on the A-350, reengined A-32X, and other future programs. It seems EADS has a real economic problem on their hands and they are looking for their bailout.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 371):
If this approach not is taken you end up with a situation similar to B2. There they cut the production run from approx 80 frames to 20 frames and the cost of each frame skyrocketed to 2B USD each, much of which went to cover the huge R+D budget.

No, in the infanent "wisdom" of Congress, they cut the B-2A program looking for the "peace dividend" that was never a reality. But, you are right, cutting the program by those 60 + additional bombers caused the costs of each one actually purchased (21 bombers) to skyrocket. The same thing has happened with the F-22A program. Had Congress and the DOD actually bought the original 385 F-22s, the flyaway price of each one after the 187th airplane would have come down significantly.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 372):
Europe needs the A400M to add to its collection of Concorde, ? the A345/6 and the A380.

 bigthumbsup 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-06 06:05:28 and read 20071 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 366):
Can the Mods lock this thread and begin a Part #2? This one is very long and it looks like many more debates are to come.

I'll ask the Moderators again to lock this thread and begin a part #2.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: GRIVely
Posted 2010-01-06 06:36:44 and read 20060 times.

If the RAF and Luftwaffe, at least, actually reduce the number of aircraft they are willing to accept for the currently quoted costs, we will have to ask Keesje what the new price per aircraft delivered will be. They must be pushing $300M apiece already with the proposed add on costs, and much more if the unit number goes down. Let's see, removing 20 aircraft out of the delivered number would raise the unit cost to what? $390M?

Zounds, if the Malaysians are getting the original number of aircraft at nearly their original price they ought to take them for certain and then they can sell them to the Germans or Brits for a profit and everybody, except Airbus, wins.

Reminds me of the old idea of a manufacturer selling their brand new widget for a $15 loss per item but planning to make it up on volume.

The GRIV

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-06 07:00:49 and read 20082 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 372):
Surely if he was shorting and about to give bad news he would be buying and not selling, or have I got the wrong end of the stick - again!

I dunno, I always end up with the wrong end of the stick too!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 372):
Europe needs the A400M to add to its collection of Concorde, ? the A345/6 and the A380.

I always liked the Sud Caravelle (who gave its nose to the A300, no?) and those nice little Fokkers...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 373):
No, it is not simply that EADS "needs a guarantee", it is more like they are "demanding a guarantee" of a profit from the A-400M.

Maybe I'm naive, but I can imagine that EADS is telling the truth that they won't make a cent on the first set of A400Ms. I believe the burn rate is huge (>100M EUR per month) now and also believe they will need the extra 5B EUR from the customers to make the program viable.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 373):
I am expecting the RAF to cancel their order, followed by the Luftwaffe, thus giving EADS a political reason to cancel the A-400M.

I don't see that happening. The only way I see it happening is if EADS overplays its hand and really does start winding down the program itself. If that happens, there's a good chance that the customers will call their bluff.

And I really hope it doesn't happen. My main complaint with A400M all along has been the overpromise / underdeliver aspect. I am fascinated by the whole program, both technically and politically. I understand how some people are rooting for the program, and that's fine. I've just been injecting my view of reality wherever I think it's appropriate, and I personally think events are tracking my view of reality fairly well.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2010-01-06 07:02:47 and read 20086 times.



Quoting GRIVely (Reply 375):
If the RAF and Luftwaffe, at least, actually reduce the number of aircraft they are willing to accept for the currently quoted costs, we will have to ask Keesje what the new price per aircraft delivered will be. They must be pushing $300M apiece already with the proposed add on costs, and much more if the unit number goes down. Let's see, removing 20 aircraft out of the delivered number would raise the unit cost to what? $390M?

Incoming...........  duck   duck   duck   duck   duck 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: N328KF
Posted 2010-01-06 08:22:08 and read 20047 times.

BusinessWeek is reporting that Airbus is considering shitcanning the whole project.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D1GFCO3.htm

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-06 08:40:46 and read 20037 times.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 378):
BusinessWeek is reporting that Airbus is considering shitcanning the whole project.

Nothing much new there, except the Airbus spokesperson is named, and they openly talk about having lists of engineers that will be moved to other programs. More brinksmanship.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 364):
Maybe Enders is trying to tank the stock price so he can man a million or so EUR selling his options short like Forgeard did?

The BW article above had a pointer to one I missed from December, saying that all these problems might prevent Enders from getting the top job at EADS:

Airbus Military Plane is Bane of Enders in Bid for EADS Top Job

Some interesting analysis on the 2nd page:

Quote:
Airbus had originally planned to deliver its first A400Ms in 2009, giving the company time to smooth out production on the A380 and prepare for the A350 development. The delays have put the three programs on collision course and left Enders with limited resources to shift from one project to another.

"The A400M is so late that Enders doesn't have engineering capacity" for the A350, said Commerzbank's Skodzik.

Given this came out Dec 10th, it's a pretty interesting quote for us to have missed.

Quote:
Enders may find his own career in doubt if the A400M fails, said Rupinder Vig, an analyst at Morgan Stanley (MS) in London.

"If he can resolve the A400m in a favorable way for EADS and for shareholders, and if he can get the A380 off the problem list, I think those two things would go a long way toward saying 'Yes, he should have the job,'" Vig said. "If he can't do those things, there will be a lot of question marks around whether he is the right man to run EADS."

So maybe Enders is after glory as well as cash (again, just like most executives)?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Keesje
Posted 2010-01-06 12:45:40 and read 19880 times.

Sure enough if the US Dollar further drops to say 33 Euro cent, the cost for the A400m could escalate to a staggering .. well $75 Billion !!?!!! That is more then the C17 programs costed in .. 1999 !!?!!!

 scratchchin 

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-06 15:52:15 and read 19779 times.

Meanwhile, over in:

A400M Flight Test Prototypes (by Keesje Jan 4 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Spantax reports: "A Belgian newspaper speculates today about the possibility of Belgium leaving the A400 program, due to financial problems. ".

If so, that'd be seven less A400Ms to be built.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2010-01-06 16:34:17 and read 19750 times.

While Defense-Aerospace has this Breaking News teaser from AFP .....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...more-money-into-a400m-project.html

Turkey says unwilling to put more money into A400M project

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Wingman
Posted 2010-01-06 16:35:06 and read 19760 times.

So would France still stick with their order even if the price per copy hit $1B? That would be awesome, just for sheer bragging rights to needle your freight dog comrades in the rundown cantinas of Kabul.."We are Les Bleus Billionaires, flying ze wurl's moz expesif plane!".

All joking aside I think it would have terrible implications for EADS in the long run to walk away from this plane. If they do and the US DoD finally goes against the A330 Tanker it would put EADS right back where they started with a 100% commercially-driven product pipeline. My guess is we'd see LM launch a C-130 successor in the next 12-18 months. I hope they work this thing out.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2010-01-06 23:20:52 and read 19692 times.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 347):
Being in Germany this New Years Eve I can tell you the Germans really love to set off fireworks for the New Years. So it seems Herr Enders has lit a few New Years firecrackers of his own.

But let's not pretend that's any different to the political hard-balling that US defence contractors play, especially Boeing

Quoting Revelation (Reply 352):
No doubt Airbus is a favored child of the sponser governments, but no doubt Boeing is too. We are mainly debating how hard each sucks on the governmental teat.

 checkmark 
And there's no difference. Both suck for all they are worth. It's not for nothing that Boeing have a reputation in the US defence industry as the harddest political hard-baller out there  yes 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
The question remains, will another 5B Euros fix the program that is mismanaged already?

The question to be asked of any (i.e. most) major defence programmes

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
That will not happen, Enders holds all the Aces in this deck with the threat of laying employees off.

Just like certain US defence programmes

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 353):
Ransom money is not "further negotiations".

Unless it's Boeing doing the negotiating?  rotfl 

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 355):
Then why don't you show him the error of his ways?

There's showing, and then there's seeing, I would guess, from track record

Quoting Revelation (Reply 364):
Maybe Enders is trying to tank the stock price so he can man a million or so EUR selling his options short like Forgeard did?

I'd have a care posting this now that the EADS execs have been cleared

Quoting Revelation (Reply 367):
EADS is looking at paying out €5.7bn (on top of the €2.4bn they've already eaten) to walk away (presumably subject to some negotiation) versus accepting risk of €3.6bn to continue.

A fair summary, I woud say

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 373):
EADS is taking huge losses on the A-380 program (which from a pure business case they should also consider cancelling),

There's no business case on the planet that could show that cancelling the A380 is a good thing now  no 

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A380Heavy
Posted 2010-01-07 02:26:59 and read 19612 times.

From what I can gather, although I admit this may be a simplistic view, the A400M would seem to be a very good aeroplane. Ok this has yet to be proven physically in terms of its ultimate capabilities but in terms of size, performance and predicted capabilities it would seem a useful tool to have in an airforce's inventory - fits between C-130 and C-17, able to refuel jets and helos, rough strip capability etc etc.

If Airbus did cancel the project and that is a big IF, what would be the prospects of another manufacturer picking up where Airbus leaves off. There have been many years of engineering that have gone in to this project and a lot of problem solving and we're already at the stage of having a flyable aircraft.

It would seem to me so long as Airbus wasn't silly about the price, that another aircraft manufacturer could have a really economically viable useful transport aircraft on their hands?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-07 02:31:31 and read 19617 times.



Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 385):
If Airbus did cancel the project and that is a big IF

I've predicted, ad nauseum, that they won't. This article seems to reinforce that sentiment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60609A20100107?type=marketsNews

Quote:
FT Deutschland cited industry sources as saying that EADS was unlikely to receive the full amount from the ordering nations -- Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey. But it said the money it will be offered would be high enough to make it impossible to refuse a deal. It said it was almost certain by now that the nations would waive rights to a 1.3 billion euro price cut they were entitled to because of the delays in the delivery of the plane.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: A380Heavy
Posted 2010-01-07 02:45:24 and read 19615 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 386):
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 385):
If Airbus did cancel the project and that is a big IF

I've predicted, ad nauseum, that they won't. This article seems to reinforce that sentiment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL...sNews

I'm sorry Lumberton, I couldn't be bothered to read through the whole thread unfortunately due to work commitments I can only catch up every now and then, so apologies if this has been discussed to death!!

The alternative - how about a collaboration with another manufacturer?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2010-01-07 03:07:56 and read 19605 times.



Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 387):
so apologies if this has been discussed to death!!

I didn't mean it that way! No apology necessary.

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 387):
The alternative - how about a collaboration with another manufacturer?

IMO, if it ever came to that, it would take a partner with very deep pockets to share the risk. I don't see a U.S.manufacturer doing that, but what do I know? (I'm the guy who's been railing on about a JV between Boeing and Lockheed for the 737RS!). I suspect that if things got to this point, the money would have to come from a soverign wealth fund, such as Russia, China, or the mid east. However, that would require an equity stake. EADS might be willing to form a separate company to do this, but as we've seen when Putin came calling a couple of years ago, they are loathe to dilute the ownership of EADS itself.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Par13del
Posted 2010-01-07 03:46:30 and read 19591 times.

Getting to be a long thread, but taking a line from the tanker thread which is applicaple because these are both military a/c, what about the needs of the warfighter?
With no offense to anyone, I think both threads show that what it all boils down to is the civilian economy and fitting military needs into that, in this day and age with the way OEM's have been charged with "bolstering" economies with military projects when economic times are "suspect", it's all about jobs, industrial capacity, trade, other concessions etc. the last thing on the list is the actual capabilities of the a/c and the needs of the military.

Note that in civilian aviation, the customer gets what they proposed if the product is built or what they ordered, any failures of those leads to penalties and or out-right cancellations. Airlines whether public or private are not held "hostage" by the OEM if they decide to bail. Airbus and Boeing had cost overruns and deliveries on the A380 and B-787, the cancellations are minimal at best, penalties paid, and fans of either side essentially agreed after much knashing of teeth that it was appropriate. Imagine what would happen if either OEM lowered their products specs or raised their price to the levels of the A400M after the product was already ordered?

I accept that it is all about the economy once cost and capabilities cannot be met after the product was ordered.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-01-07 07:17:25 and read 19502 times.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 384):
But let's not pretend that's any different to the political hard-balling that US defence contractors play, especially Boeing

Correct and I don't think I've said otherwise. I've been just as grouchy about VH-71 for instance.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 384):
And there's no difference. Both suck for all they are worth.

I think it's significant to note that FR and DE actually own large parts of EADS, just like US now owns an even larger share of GM. Regardless of the value of such investments, it certainly does create a greater opportunity for bias. Personally I'd feel better if governments didn't own parts of businesses.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 384):
It's not for nothing that Boeing have a reputation in the US defence industry as the harddest political hard-baller out there

It seems to me that LM is a lot sharper politically. They get a lot of what they want done without a lot of drama. It seems Boeing is no where as adept as is LM. They're always getting caught with their pants down (rocket launcher scandal, KC767v1 scandal, satellite cost overrun scandal, etc) and are always having to use protests after the fact to try to get things done.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 384):
I'd have a care posting this now that the EADS execs have been cleared

In my opinion cleared is too strong a word. All that happened was the charges weren't proven. It doesn't mean insider trading didn't happen, it just means the government couldn't come up with convincing evidence that it happened.

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 385):
it would seem a useful tool to have in an airforce's inventory

Absolutely. The real question is if it is good value for money.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 389):
what it all boils down to is the civilian economy and fitting military needs into that

I think a big part of the cost overrun is excessive attention paid to military needs. For instance, terrain following. Who is really going to fly this hugely expensive asset into an area where you don't have air superiority? How much of a difference is terrain following going to make when flying over uncontrolled territory? It seems in Baghdad the technique w