Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/130142/

Topic: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: moderators
Posted 2011-01-08 11:29:42 and read 12990 times.

This thread is for the discussion of all non-flight test related matters in regards to the A400M. If you wish to discuss the A400M test flights, please use the dedicated thread that has been established for the discussion of that topic:

A400M Flight Test Thread (by moderators Jan 8 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Please keep the discussions on topic as well as within the Forum Rules. If you see a post that you feel violates the Forum Rules, please suggest deletion on it as soon as possible so the Moderators are not forced to lock a thread due to the amount of posts that would need to be removed.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-08 14:23:11 and read 12911 times.

A lot of people here are saying that the C17 offers double lift at less than double costs in comparision to the A400M.

This might be true, but it is irrelevant as not every country has a demand for higher lift.

(Or does every C130J customers needs the lift of the C17 as well...?)


And what about the "new" Galaxy?

It offers a lot more lift than the C17 at much lower costs.

Why did nobody say that the C17 is such an expensive aircraft in comparison?


Because every aircraft has its market and niche.

And the market or the demand is big enough for the C17, A400M, C130J and the smaller C27J, C295 etc.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-08 15:30:55 and read 12867 times.

You are describing short-term issues.

During the useful life of the A400M program (and particularly after the time the first production slots will become available for outside customers), the world and the economic situation will most probably undergo major shifts and developments anyway.

Nobody expects the DoD to plunk a mountain of cash on the table today for a bunch of A400Ms.

Within the coming decades, however, things can and will develop further. I don't think anybody can really make sound predictions across that whole period where the A400M will be on offer.

[Edited 2011-01-11 05:41:46 by SA7700]

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2011-01-08 15:53:43 and read 12859 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Nobody expects the DoD to plunk a mountain of cash on the table today for a bunch of A400Ms.

Within the coming decades, however, things can and will develop further. I don't think anybody can really make sound predictions across that whole period where the A400M will be on offer.

...That's assuming that the United States will ever try to return to an ambitious global expeditionary role, which is debatable. Look at many western European nations, over the past few decades, they've essentially made themselves irrelevant on the global stage. And what effective 'muscle' that they retain is contingent on a NATO/US involvement. But now the US will be asking themselves the same question: why should we be spending so much on defense? Why do we need such a large military?

And the fact remains that the US is likely to repeat the wilderness years of post-Viet Nam. However, this time the situation is even more dire, considering the massive economic and social crises we face. Because when we stop and take an objective look at the financial budget crisis, one of two things has to occur: 1.) "bankruptcy" and defaulting on our debt. 2.) Massive budget cuts, which the military would be the "easiest" to achieve.

And even more importantly... lets just say the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the US to purchase the A400M suddenly materializes. That still does not address the question of whether or not the need for the aircraft will still exist. I don't think any of us deny that the US will be undergoing a sharp contraction of global military commitments. The appetite for war and overseas adventures has evaporated.

...Hell isn't that exactly what so many in Europe wanted!? - A contraction of US military power, and a greater hesitation to rush into war? It's funny that some of you suddenly change your tune, when you want the US to buy some of your equipment.  

[Edited 2011-01-08 15:55:12]

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-01-08 15:53:57 and read 12858 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
You are describing short-term issues.

A question I would then ask is why is no one getting on the EU nations for being short sighted and actually reducing their numbers, stalled for months on funding developments and not stating their intention to increase their numbers.
These are actual moves being taken by the nations who are designing and building the a/c, so far the US is not involved, all we have are opinions of Americans and their supporters on this site, their short sights pales in comparion to the actual actions being taken in Europe.

One may start to get the impression from reading all the A400M threads that the success or failure of the a/c is with the US government and its military services.  

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2011-01-08 16:05:00 and read 12847 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
A question I would then ask is why is no one getting on the EU nations for being short sighted and actually reducing their numbers, stalled for months on funding developments and not stating their intention to increase their numbers.

That's a great point.

And I think the logical answer is simple: their citizenry is asking a fair question -- during this time of mounting financial and social pressures, can we really afford to committing ourselves to other people's wars??

And the US is starting to ask themselves the same question. And as the drum beat for budget cuts continue to grow louder, the $700billion DoD budget is a tempting target. The individual branches are being asked to provide a No-Shit List of what they absolutely cannot do without to meet their basic mission. No one has yet to make a convincing case that the A400M is a must have. And that without it, the USAF's ability to meet mission is significantly degraded. Until they can do that, the idea of the US purchasing the A400M is a pipe dream.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-08 16:13:11 and read 12840 times.

The current US Armed Forces reduction will probably continue for 10 years and then stay level for the next 10 years or longer as the recovery is very slow. When they have budget to spend on new hardware, I doubt that the first things they will look at are additional air transports.

The next thing I believe we'll be hearing is several European countries will want to decelerate their A400 deliveries. They will keep the numbers but stretch the deliveries over another 5 or so years.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-09 04:41:53 and read 12666 times.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Nobody expects the DoD to plunk a mountain of cash on the table today for a bunch of A400Ms.

Within the coming decades, however, things can and will develop further. I don't think anybody can really make sound predictions across that whole period where the A400M will be on offer.

...That's assuming that the United States will ever try to return to an ambitious global expeditionary role, which is debatable.

I'm not even debating that here. I'm simply pointing towards the difficulty of predicting the future that far in advance.

The A400M is about to become an available resource. How exactly the corresponding needs will develop is to be seen, but the program will be available for decades to come. That's it.

Actual procurement with all its political ramifications will heavily depend on the way the military, economical and political situation at the time. And my point is simply that there are many known and unknown unknowns on that path.

That's it. No reason to get excited, really!
 
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
Look at many western European nations, over the past few decades, they've essentially made themselves irrelevant on the global stage.

Since WWII european countries have not really played a global role any more, and I would say in case of Germany the last times we've had a "global role" didn't go so well...

In recent decades most of our militaries have been undergoing a major change from cannon fodder in WWIII, slightly buffering the first impact of a soviet invasion towards a multi-purpose force with trans-regional deployability. That is a fundamental overhaul.

You're massively oversimplifying both the quantitave and the qualitative developments in that regard.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
And even more importantly... lets just say the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the US to purchase the A400M suddenly materializes. That still does not address the question of whether or not the need for the aircraft will still exist. I don't think any of us deny that the US will be undergoing a sharp contraction of global military commitments. The appetite for war and overseas adventures has evaporated.

We know how quickly such things can change.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
...Hell isn't that exactly what so many in Europe wanted!? - A contraction of US military power, and a greater hesitation to rush into war? It's funny that some of you suddenly change your tune, when you want the US to buy some of your equipment.

Sorry, but that is really beneath you. You've already exposed the fact that you are capable of insightful, differentiated consideration of complex topics. It's too late to camouflage yourself now as a jingoistic troglodyte with the knee-jerk as the highest brain function.

Seriously: Most military endeavours scale both with quantity of material and the intelligence of the strategic and tactical use of that material.

The Iraq war was a completely harebrained blunder, based on nothing but misconceived ideology and riddled with unrealistic assumptions all around, in the process severely damaging the necessary Afghanistan campaign. That is why it has been criticized.

Wanting to reduce US military power would only look like an attractive prospect if one assumed that the political and military intelligence behind that power was a completely lost cause, basically as a desperate last resort: If you can't secure a loose cannon, the last resort would be to hope that at least its ammunition ran out.

The absolutely primary request has always been to think more realistically about when and how to use the military forces available.

It really is a defensive knee-jerk reaction to completely ignore and deflect the calls for more intelligent use and instead pretend that everyone was just out to weaken or destroy your forces. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I think you do really know that.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
A question I would then ask is why is no one getting on the EU nations for being short sighted and actually reducing their numbers, stalled for months on funding developments and not stating their intention to increase their numbers.

The member nations do see this program through. Squabbling about details like the initial order volume (which can and will be further modified up or down in the coming years anyway) is small fry by comparison.

The US DoD is not a customer for the A400M at this point and may never be. But anyone who's incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead should just not be working in aviation management.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-01-09 05:33:12 and read 12641 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
But anyone who's incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead should just not be working in aviation management
Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
Actual procurement with all its political ramifications will heavily depend on the way the military, economical and political situation at the time. And my point is simply that there are many known and unknown unknowns on that path.

As mentioned, the US was struggling to continue a line for a very successful a/c - C17 - which is proven in the field, one of the options the Europeans could have looked at was to acquire C-17's even build them under license, instead they chose national development over trade and designed and built their own, in this case political considerations trump the military. Such was the decision made decades ago to preserve aviation knowledge in Europe, no one questions the results of that decision.
If this options works out for the Europeans, in 10 - 20 years time when the US is looking at replacing their C-17's and C-130's, they will be able to look across the pond and learn from their experience by viewing the final results, as it relates to the A400M, it will be a mature and proven platform a mirror of the C-17 at this point in time.
The big question is will the politics be any different.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-09 05:38:31 and read 12638 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
And even more importantly... lets just say the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the US to purchase the A400M suddenly materializes. That still does not address the question of whether or not the need for the aircraft will still exist. I don't think any of us deny that the US will be undergoing a sharp contraction of global military commitments. The appetite for war and overseas adventures has evaporated.

We know how quickly such things can change.

In what direction?

The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined.

How long do you expect that to continue?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
But anyone who's incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead should just not be working in aviation management.

One could equally say that someone who justifies A400M's continuance in spite of EADS's admitted incompetence and allows for the huge overruns in time and money based on PERHAPS someone coming along PERHAPS decades from now and bailing the program out also should just not be working in aviation management.

IMHO, your comment is amongst the most arrogant and self serving I've ever seen here on a.net. Just because someone sees the future differently than you do, does not mean they are "incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead". And to then go on to say that person "should just not be working in aviation management" is the height of arrogance, IMHO.

[Edited 2011-01-09 06:42:42]

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-09 11:12:35 and read 12538 times.

can we quit squabbling like a bunch of children (you said/no I didn't).. some days if I had the resources I'd round all of you up and put you in a closed room with nerf sticks until ....?

Zeke, do you have a link to the whole presentation that the graph from hades came from... ? I think that might end some of the assumptions.

basically though, the A400 fits some potential air transport needs for a mid capacity a/c... but the marketplace seems to be reacting with more options than were envisioned when this project started. So experts out there who are the potential new customers? what do the have today (in place or on order)?

with the potential weight growth of the transportable ground vehicles will that change the picture? (one thing I've noted is this need to strip them down for shipping weight, and re assemble at the destination.. that seems to imply that they will not be doing live drops in the middle of a combat theater where the troops roll out the door with guns blazing... )

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: srbmod
Posted 2011-01-09 12:37:02 and read 12455 times.

A quick reminder:

Quoting moderators (Thread starter):
Please keep the discussions on topic as well as within the Forum Rules. If you see a post that you feel violates the Forum Rules, please suggest deletion on it as soon as possible so the Moderators are not forced to lock a thread due to the amount of posts that would need to be removed.

This is the only warning that will be given in regards to off-topic posts. If this thread goes off-topic, it will be locked.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2011-01-09 14:01:03 and read 12405 times.

So who in north america is going to buy 400 units if not the USAF? COME ON. This has to be the wrost excuse given for EADS crack smoking in thier market forcasts. Canada doesn't need 400 of anything that flys, and CAN'T buy the A400M even if it did. So lets look at the next nation that could order it in NA. Mexico. What the hell are they going to do with 400 A400M? Where are they going to get the money? C130 are cheap and even that I doubt will see many sales to replace current frames that become unservicable. Certainly not going to hit 400 selling handfuls to the other small nations in north america, even if they would buy anything that expensive. Look at the trouble that South Africa has with its order... and its a nation with large defense budget, and pretentions to exerting that power outside its own border if required. Mexico and the rest in central america don't exactly match them in size of budget or attempts to justify it with power projection.

[Edited 2011-01-11 06:41:04 by SA7700]

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-01-09 14:32:18 and read 12387 times.

To play devils advocate, they said "No USAF penetration", maybe they mean cargo carriers in North America will start using larger props - A400M - to save fuel cost versus jets like the 757, A300, etc?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: UH60FtRucker
Posted 2011-01-09 14:59:04 and read 12372 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 32):
Mexico.

Well I wouldn't even consider Mexico in that category. Because if you look at the graph, there is a column for Latin America. Since they made that distinction in categories, I would assume that North America = USA and Canada.

Anyway the disclaimer is that they forecast 400 A400M type. However, I still maintain that the money simply isn't there. As I stated, we're going into another wilderness period, where we won't see major upgrades or purchases. We're tightening the belt.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Galaxy5007
Posted 2011-01-09 15:54:50 and read 12345 times.

No Offense to anyone; but this seems to be a repeat of the last thread...same chart, same discussion...Why (again) are people (keesje in particular) keep bringing old topics back up when everyone is pretty much in agreement that hes wrong in many aspects.

TopBoom; just to clairify, 206 C-17s have been delivered to the USAF to be exact. Im not sure why, but the last serial ends at P-222.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-09 16:36:18 and read 12324 times.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 35):
No Offense to anyone; but this seems to be a repeat of the last thread...same chart, same discussion...Why (again) are people (keesje in particular) keep bringing old topics back up when everyone is pretty much in agreement that hes wrong in many aspects.

You are perfectly within your rights to see it that way, as he is in the opposite direction.
I can just as much consider the question to remain open through years and possibly decades to come.

When you're looking at the history of sure bets, there haven't really been that many in hindsight, particularly in the military field.

At this point the A400 looks to be in decent shape with regards to its actual performance, horribly out of time and over budget (not uncommon for this kind of project) and with neither opportunity nor demand for selling any of the far-away open slots in its production run.

Anyone can stir his own tea leaves any way he wants, but at that level of theoretical speculation, are they really worth getting excited about?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-01-09 19:51:49 and read 12270 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 29):
Zeke, do you have a link to the whole presentation that the graph from hades came from... ? I think that might end some of the assumptions.

Sure, it is not hidden, it was presented in 2008 to investors, it is available for anyone to view on the EADS site.

http://www.eads.com/dms/eads/int/en/.../gif2008_workshop_a400m_suarez.pdf

You will see from the presentation that they did not assumed to pickup any A400M orders in North America, it assumes zero penetration in the USAF, if they do it will be a bonus.

What seems to be misunderstood, the market forecast suggests that 400 mid size transports will come up for replacement or renewal by 2025 in North America. I do not think that number is unreasonable given the size and age of mid size transport fleets. However EADS in their presentation removed those aircraft from their potential market size, this is being conservative.

This would be no different to EADS presenting a graph with the worldwide fleet of mid sized wide bodies, IL-96, 767, A330, A340, 777, and then to come up and say they expect 3000 of them need replacement by 2035. 2000 of them outside of the USA, and they expect to capture 1000 of those sales with the A330/A350. It would then follow they would expect the 787/777 to capture 2000 sales, 1000 from North America, and 1000 from the rest of the world.

The presentation is basically saying that they are looking at getting 45% of the market share (600/1300) with the A400M, with aircraft like the C-130/AN-70/C-17 taking up the remaining 65% (700/1300).

Clearly the A400M is in the mid size transport market, looking at the other aircraft in the market segment it was compared to C-130s, C-160, AN-12, and IL-76/78. The A400M will easily do the role of those aircraft and then some, with modern oversized loads.

The A400M comes in at different pricing levels, depending on what bells and whistles (capabilities) a customer wants installed. Often on here people deliberately choose to use the most expensive A400M price they can find with the highest capabilities, and then the cheapest price available they can find from the competition without making any acknowledgement for the capability differences. Sure a 767 is cheaper than a 777, so is a C-130 cheaper than A400M, but in both cases they have different capabilities.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-10 01:22:05 and read 12220 times.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 35):
TopBoom; just to clairify, 206 C-17s have been delivered to the USAF to be exact.

Thanks, I was close when I said "around 210".

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 35):
Im not sure why, but the last serial ends at P-222.

I don't remember the USAF tail numbers, but the first test flight C-17A (FY-1989 or FY-1990) was MD number T-1, and it was joined 5 other aircraft in the flight test program, numbers P-1 through P-5 (all also MD). So T-1 plus P-1 to P-222 (MD until FY-1997 and B from FY-1998 to the FY-2010 airplanes) equils the entire production of 223 C-17s for the USAF.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-10 02:49:29 and read 12172 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):
Sure a 767 is cheaper than a 777, so is a C-130 cheaper than A400M, but in both cases they have different capabilities.

Exactly.

A C17 can do much more than a A400M, which can do much more than a Herc, which can do much more than a C295, etc...


 

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: bj87
Posted 2011-01-10 05:21:47 and read 12101 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):
You will see from the presentation that they did not assumed to pickup any A400M orders in North America, it assumes zero penetration in the USAF, if they do it will be a bonus.

That seems very realistic. The US produces several transport aircraft themselves so why would they order European if they can get something American that will do pretty much the same, it's basic politics.

On the other hand if the tanker order falls through for Airbus (which is what my money is on) then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-10 10:50:48 and read 11946 times.

Quoting bj87 (Reply 40):
then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.

don't count on it.... if they are feeling generous, they'll find something that's really needed....

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-01-10 11:55:18 and read 11910 times.

Quoting bj87 (Reply 40):
On the other hand if the tanker order falls through for Airbus (which is what my money is on) then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.

As we saying that products are purchased for reasons other than their capabilities?
Say it aint so, please  

Such sentiment if it ever happens may work against the A400M, if the Airbus tanker is selected a second time, the US government may feel they have to give something to Boeing for all their effort also, the only thing on the playing field right now is more C-17's so it could be a case of dammed if you do dammed if you don't. Add the increased cargo capabilities of the tanker with additional C-17's bought and the cargo capabilities of the US will be overflowing for a number of decades to come, even if the C-130's are retired they still may have excess capabilities, the number of places a C-130 can go that an A400M / C-17 and KC-30 cannot is not that large.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-10 13:28:29 and read 11859 times.

Quoting bj87 (Reply 40):
On the other hand if the tanker order falls through for Airbus (which is what my money is on) then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.

After the tanker deal, or should I say if there is a tanker deal (every program is on the chopping block), I doubt there will be money to do that.

I just cannot see Congress going along buying European built airplanes that are not needed by the US after the DOD cancels some military programs that have some level of need.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: EPA001
Posted 2011-01-10 14:20:13 and read 11830 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):

Sure, it is not hidden, it was presented in 2008 to investors, it is available for anyone to view on the EADS site.

http://www.eads.com/dms/eads/int/en/.../gif2008_workshop_a400m_suarez.pdf

You will see from the presentation that they did not assumed to pickup any A400M orders in North America, it assumes zero penetration in the USAF, if they do it will be a bonus.


Many thanks Zeke for providing us with clarity over the 400 A400M issue in North America. So this argument can be put to rest.  .

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Galaxy5007
Posted 2011-01-10 14:24:20 and read 11941 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
I don't remember the USAF tail numbers, but the first test flight C-17A (FY-1989 or FY-1990) was MD number T-1, and it was joined 5 other aircraft in the flight test program, numbers P-1 through P-5 (all also MD). So T-1 plus P-1 to P-222 (MD until FY-1997 and B from FY-1998 to the FY-2010 airplanes) equils the entire production of 223 C-17s for the USAF.

Actually, They aren't counting T-1 as part as the 223 ordered, since T-1 was never to enter service; it always has been and will be a test aircraft. For whatever reason, it got screwed up and a jet was lost somewhere. When we hit 180, 181-190 were supposed to be 08 models, but got put on the 07 budget, so 9 of them (up to 7189) got 07 serial numbers. Then 8190 (which was supposed to be 7190) came out, and was part of the 15 jets on the FY08 budget. The 8 09 jets, 9205-9212, and the 10 jets for FY10, bring it to the 222. Something happened between the FY08 and FY09 orders. My guess is the USAFs contribution to NATO (08-0001) is what took one jet out of the FY07 lineup.

Sorry this was off topic.

I am curious to how they will serialize the A400Ms considering these things were supposed to be in service already....granted I know each country does it differently.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-11 07:20:19 and read 11787 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):

The presentation is basically saying that they are looking at getting 45% of the market share (600/1300) with the A400M, with aircraft like the C-130/AN-70/C-17 taking up the remaining 65% (700/1300).

It would seem a lot of the controversy could have been avoided by presenting the chart on page 16 instead of the one on page 14. Even though IMHO that one has lots of optimism on it, it isn't as open to misinterpretation as the one on page 14 is.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-11 15:30:14 and read 11817 times.

It is academic anyway. The USAF will not get the money to buy the A-400 even if they wanted them.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-11 17:55:54 and read 11765 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
he USAF will not get the money to buy the A-400 even if they wanted them.

Do not be so sure.


If EADS decides to produce them in the U.S. like they planned with the KC45A, then they would get the money.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2011-01-11 17:59:43 and read 11764 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 28):
Do not be so sure.


If EADS decides to produce them in the U.S. like they planned with the KC45A, then they would get the money.

Not a chance. Look at the number of F-22's that were initially ordered, and how many were delivered. Look at the mess the F-35 development is. Look at the mess of the KC-X. There simply isn't a chance of the government giving the USAF the money to buy A400's, short of world war breaking out.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-12 01:50:58 and read 11635 times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 29):
Not a chance. Look at the number of F-22's that were initially ordered, and how many were delivered. Look at the mess the F-35 development is. Look at the mess of the KC-X. There simply isn't a chance of the government giving the USAF the money to buy A400's, short of world war breaking out.

Well, there are differences:

The F-22 and F-35 are clean-sheet designs fully funded by the DoD with development time and cost spiraling out of control , in large part due to challenging feature sets.

The KC-X has been complicated by political interference; At least the Airbus model is pretty much finished and in slightly different form alredy flying and proven.

In case of a later A400M purchase, the US would be looking at ordering a finished product pretty much off the shelf, with very little development risk - basically just for fitting of force-specific modifications.

The political risks could be similar to the KC-X campaign, but that would depend on whether the DoD got their acquisition management back under control. As dysfunctional as it appears to be now it can hardly be sustainable, A400M or not.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-12 04:35:48 and read 11584 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 28):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
he USAF will not get the money to buy the A-400 even if they wanted them.


Do not be so sure.


If EADS decides to produce them in the U.S. like they planned with the KC45A, then they would get the money.
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 29):
There simply isn't a chance of the government giving the USAF the money to buy A400's, short of world war breaking out.

Correct, the DOD is looking at future cuts in the neighborhood of $100B + just for the next 5 years, most of that comiong from developement and porcurment. What happens after that, at least as we see it today is more budget cutting for the DOD.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 30):
In case of a later A400M purchase, the US would be looking at ordering a finished product pretty much off the shelf, with very little development risk - basically just for fitting of force-specific modifications.

Don't forget the repayment of the export facility loan, which will add something to the costs of each airframe. How much that cost is depends on how many A-400s are ordered internationally, which would include the US.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-12 04:46:23 and read 11570 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Don't forget the repayment of the export facility loan, which will add something to the costs of each airframe. How much that cost is depends on how many A-400s are ordered internationally, which would include the US.

No doubt, cost would certainly be a factor.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-01-12 07:53:01 and read 11539 times.

Seems to be an existing captive market for civil certified medium sized transports that the A400M could fill.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Pineau
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © mutzair


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rainer Bexten
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Propfreak


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erick Stamm
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yunjin Lee - Korea Aero Photos

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-01-12 13:12:52 and read 11439 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
Seems to be an existing captive market for civil certified medium sized transports that the A400M could fill.

Yes, but I can't imagine that those companies could absorb the type of capital expenses buying A400Ms would incur. Airbus would have to put the A400M on a serious cost cutting program to sell them to private carriers. The C-17 was offered to civilians as the MD-17 and BC-17X but the $200 million plus price tag was a major turnoff for potential customers.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: tugger
Posted 2011-01-12 14:36:27 and read 11423 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
The presentation is basically saying that they are looking at getting 45% of the market share (600/1300) with the A400M, with aircraft like the C-130/AN-70/C-17 taking up the remaining 65% (700/1300).

Well, there's you problem! Airbus is projecting a market space of 110%. (45% + 65% = 110%).

No wonder sales are falling short....

Of course that's always the problem with government related programs, they use numbers that aren't achievable in the real world. 

Tugg

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-12 14:40:21 and read 11419 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 34):
but the $200 million plus price tag was a major turnoff for potential customers.

A think the price was MDDs biggest, if not the only, mistake when they offered the MD 17 to the customers.

(Lufthansa Cargo got a nice and impressive presentation about the field performance)


But a much smaller A400M, with all military systems removed, could be a good choice for special markets like for example, africa.

I also expect the new Embraer transporter to be offered as civil version as well.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-12 15:16:17 and read 11422 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
The presentation is basically saying that they are looking at getting 45% of the market share (600/1300) with the A400M, with aircraft like the C-130/AN-70/C-17 taking up the remaining 65% (700/1300).

Zeke apparently made a minor mistake calculating the percentages – the absolute numbers do match.

Quoting tugger (Reply 35):
Of course that's always the problem with government related programs, they use numbers that aren't achievable in the real world.

Of course entirely contrary to any private enterprise, ever!   
As everybody knows, waste, fraud and abuse absolutely never occur in the private sector.

No, sorry – EADS/Airbus isn't operating any differently from other major corporations. No wonder, since they simply are one of them.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-01-12 15:21:27 and read 11422 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37):
Zeke apparently made a minor mistake calculating the percentages – the absolute numbers do match.

Yes I did.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2011-01-13 02:40:29 and read 11349 times.

I have a question about the capability of the flight envelope protection:
Would the C-17 crash last year have happened with a A400M as well? This is the second large Boeing aircraft lost while flying patterns for flight displays:

C-17A 00-0173 AIB Results Released (by Galaxy5007 Dec 10 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
http://www.pacaf.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101210-080.wmv

Of course the pilot choose to violate the Air Show Demonstration Profile because he seemed consistently to do manually what the Airbus flight envelope protection does automatically: skim along the boundaries of flight (E.g. in this and earlier flights the pilot experienced lengthy stall warning. Max. allowed bank C-17 = 60°, experienced bank=82°).

Obviously the C-17 can safely be operated by obedience to the limits written on some paper somewhere. These limits are instructed and briefed but the aircraft will not hinder the pilot to break them.

Obviously there is some buffer in those limits that have led the pilot to the fatal assumption that he can violate them willingly and with - what he though - the expertise of a real master pilot. He was wrong.

Granted, his performance (also in past flights) was much more stunning than a safely operated C-17 would have allowed. But IMO it still was not as stunning as a safely operated A400M.

How would the A400M have performed? What is the ultimate banking angle if a pilot just keeps the stick at a fully deflect position? How does the resulting vertical flight profile look like (demanding no vertical G-force change, one would expect that level flight simply would be kept).

But even Airbus has a logic that after a certain limit the stick must be pulled to maintain level flight. The crucial question is that bank angle and whether level flight CAN be maintained at even higher bank angles. Is there a bank angle when an Airbus aircraft will start sinking even when pulling the stick fully?

I have the information here but it still is not 100% clear what will happen in high bank angle those conditions:

http://www.ttu.fr/english/endocpdf/A400Mduality2010.pdf

Relevant quote: That!s why on the A400M, the bank angle is limited to about 60 ° compared with a flight that uses horizontal wings. On the other Airbus aircraft equipped with electrical flight controls, this limit is roughly 33 °; it was increased to 120 ° on the A400M using the same systems, but adapted to specific conditions of military operations.

What is the logic of the fligth stick say at an extreme banking of 120° (b.t.w. much more than the C-17 ever will)? Pulling now should mean that the sign of the demanded G-force switches (before it started a climb, with 120° bank I would expect it to start a descend). Somehow the logic of demanding g-forces looks tricky in high bank angle situations...

(I ask this homeless question here, because it was deleted from the crash accident report thread. Some folks told me go and make an own thread, this does not belong here, which I did. Only that thread was deleted as well)

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-13 05:07:26 and read 11311 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
Would the C-17 crash last year have happened with a A400M as well?

The size of the safe flight envelope of the airplanes that crashed during practice is not what has been questioned by any of the accident investigations. What was questioned was these pilots consistantly flew their aircraft outside of the safe envelopes. If the A-400 can be flown safely beyond the limits of the C-17, this guy would have done that in the A-400. The end results would have been the same, no matter which airplane he flew.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
This is the second large Boeing aircraft lost while flying patterns for flight displays:

Actually, it was the 3rd big Boeing to crash while practicing for aero demos. The C-17A in Alaska that killed 4, the B-52H in Washington State, killing 5, and a KC-135A, killing 5, also at Fairchild AFB (the "Thunderhawks" accident). The similarities of the C-17 and B-52 crashes are shocking. The KC-135 crash is very different, it was flown through the wake turbalance of the co-demo B-52G at a very low airspeed and very low altitude. There was no room to recover.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
How would the A400M have performed?

Unfortunetly, under similar conditions and the same aggressive pilot wanting to "please" the airshow crowd, it would also be lost.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-13 06:12:19 and read 11294 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
If the A-400 can be flown safely beyond the limits of the C-17, this guy would have done that in the A-400. The end results would have been the same, no matter which airplane he flew.

I guess you would have wanted to rephrase that.

If the A400 can be flown safely beyond the limits of the C-17, the A400 will still be safe.

Airbus is actually doing flight displays like that routinely, which they would never do if it was that risky:

YouTube - A319 Rock´n Roll Take off
YouTube - A340 600 Demo Flight Le Bourget 2001
YouTube - Airbus A380 Berlin Airshow

Some of these look insane, but they are all quite safe as far as I'm aware.

As far as I'm aware, the A400M inherits the same flight logic and should effectively behave the same (within its own performance limits). So we'll see the same kind of display with it as well, without the pilots breaking a sweat.

EDIT: Apparently, they've already started doing that:

YouTube - ILA 2010: Airbus A400M in action

Under normal conditions the pilot should just be able to rely on the limits: Taking off and yanking the stick back to its rear stop just lets the plane climb as fast as it safely can. Similar for other maneuvers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
Unfortunetly, under similar conditions and the same aggressive pilot wanting to "please" the airshow crowd, it would also be lost.

Not quite. On an FBW Airbus the pilot would have had to explicitly yank the breakers of the flight computers (physically or by explicit reconfiguration via software) in order to break out of the envelope.

Such an attempt at actively compromising flight safety would almost certainly be immediately career-ending for the pilot.

On the C-17 the pilot could in fact just choose to apply a bit more pressure to the stick (hey, it could have been inadvertent!) and choose to ignore the stall warning a little bit longer to get the plane out of control. Not difficult, just a transient mistake could be enough. Apparently in the case linked above he thought that he knew what he was doing, and apparently it just wasn't so.

In the Airbus he and his crew would likely have survived, possibly at the cost of overshooting their loopback turn a little bit because the plane would just not have gone beyond what it knew to be safe.

The caveat, as far as I understand it, is that the Airbus FBW may still get kicked beyond the envelope boundaries if it's confronted with both a pilot pushing it right to its limits and windshear overcoming its recovery capabilities. The automatic protections need some room for their corrections, and I expect that severe enough windshear would still be dangerous – I'm pretty sure extreme maneuvers like the demo flights above are only ever attempted when the air is still enough.

And, of course, CFIT and other mistakes can still result in disaster. Airbus FBW is of course not 100% failsafe, just protecting from a certain class of mistakes.

For the A400M it looks plausible that it will fly under tactical conditions which may actually use such full-tilt-maneuvers every now and then (maximum climb / approaching as a moving target / threat evasion), so under these conditions you'd need even more skilled/rested/undistracted C-17 pilots than you'd need in the A400M.

How substantial that difference may be under tactical conditions, considering the respective aircraft performance etc. is certainly a relevant point, but given the various statements of pilots with concrete experience on both kinds of control systems, the difference does appear to exist.

[Edited 2011-01-13 06:53:09]

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2011-01-13 07:14:36 and read 11256 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 41):
CFIT and other mistakes can still result in disaster

Of course ... but the aircraft will always do that within the valid flight envelope  

A perfectly valid flight vector can still hit an obstacle. But that is something different than loosing height without wanting it.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-13 08:24:02 and read 11233 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 42):
Of course ... but the aircraft will always do that within the valid flight envelope

At least now that they've canceled automatic terrain following – it could have taken care of that as well!

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-01-13 09:23:41 and read 11221 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
Would the C-17 crash last year have happened with a A400M as well?

I do not think so. I do not think an A400M would have stalled in that attitude. The low speed flight performance/lift generation, and roll control are fundamentally different.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
What is the ultimate banking angle if a pilot just keeps the stick at a fully deflect position?

On the A400M it is 125 deg AoB, it is double the limit of the passenger aircraft of 66.5 degrees (2.5 g).

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
The crucial question is that bank angle and whether level flight CAN be maintained at even higher bank angles

No, lift need to be generated somehow.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
Is there a bank angle when an Airbus aircraft will start sinking even when pulling the stick fully?

Can be at any bank angle and they can "sink", it is a descending turn.

However for a level coordinated turn at constant airspeed on the A400M, once the AoB is such that the “g” is greater than 3, the aircraft will start descending (70.5 degrees).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 41):

As far as I'm aware, the A400M inherits the same flight logic and should effectively behave the same (within its own performance limits).

The fundamentals have similar routes, however the A400M is stressed to different requirements to civil airliners, and it has a different performance and operational envelope.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2011-01-13 23:45:48 and read 11043 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 44):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 39):
Is there a bank angle when an Airbus aircraft will start sinking even when pulling the stick fully?

Can be at any bank angle and they can "sink", it is a descending turn.

When pulling the stick fully?

At low bank angles the stick for vertical g-control can be left in neutral position and the aircraft never leaves leveled flight if it was leveled at the time when the stick was released to that position.

At some higher bank angle (> 60° for the A400M) the aircraft starts sinking if not corrected by pulling the stick to some degree.

And my question was whether there would be a bank angle when even pulling the stick even fully would no longer help to maintain leveled flight.

I expect it because at latest at 90° bank angle (long before the ultimate 125°) the g-commanding logic on the vertical axis no longer works at all.

As a summary we can say, that the Airbus fligth envelope protection seems like an extremely valuable asset compared to the C-17 because:

- It allows much higher limits than the C-17 has. At the ultimate 60° bank angle limit for the C-17 the A400M only just leaves the pure g-commanding area. At 60° leaving the stick simply in neutral position will 100% guarantee that the aircraft never experiences any vertical acceleration (= stays at leveled flight). The A400M top banking angle of 125° allows some very unique maneuvers (turning and escaping from a valley by jumping over a hill...see the Axalp videos to see the maneuver).

- It is a much better protection for the aircraft and the crew to bring max aircraft performance. Did somebody note that the regular USAF C-17 Aerial Demonstration program does NOT allow to achieve the maximum performance of the aircraft ("Max Perform")? It only allows to show the aircraft capabilities (copied almost word by word from the C-17 accident report). Because there is no boundary protection the maximum performance is considered as "beyond" the aircraft capabilities. Strange isn't it? I have never seen it worded so evidently. The A400M on the other side regularly on airshows and in normal operation allows showing the max performance without any problem or impact on safety.

- It is even much more warranted for a military plane than for the civil Airbus airliners.


All of these (except the dimension of limits maybe) also fully apply to the KC-30.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: zeke
Posted 2011-01-14 00:13:43 and read 11056 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 45):

There is an assumption made by many that then A400M has the same FBW limits as the other FBW Airbus types, this is incorrect.

The bank angle limit in the A400M is 125 degrees, on the civil FBW types it is either 66.5 or 67 degrees depending on who you talk to. The g load limit on the A400M is 3g (acos (1/3)=70.5 degree level turn at constant speed), 2.5g (acos (1/2.5)=66.5 degree level turn at constant speed) on the civil types with flaps retracted.

It is possible on the civil airframes, as well as the A400M to exceed these limits, when doing so the aircraft goes from normal law into unusual attitude law which gives the pilots direct control over the flight control surfaces to recover back to normal law.

The answer to your question was already stated, it is 70.5 degrees, however dynamic manoeuvres beyond 70.5 degrees can be performed.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-14 06:28:34 and read 10958 times.

I thought in the A-400 FBW design/programming the pilot had the authority to exceed airplane limitations, if needed. Is that not the case?

Also remember in the C-17 accident, that airplane did not stall until the co-pilot retracted the leading elge slats some 7-10 knots below the minimum airspeed to retract them (IIRC from the report the scheduled airspeed to retract the slats, on that mission was around 195 knots, but they were retracted around 186 knots). The stall was not caused solely by the excessive bank angles. The low airspeed and loss of lift devices contributed to the accident, too.

The C-17 was also at about 850' AGL, not enough room to recover.

I know the A-400 does not have leading edge slats, but the trailing edge flaps are extended slightly for the low speed/low altitude manuvers seen on YouTube. Will it stall if the flaps are retracted 10 knots, or so, below the scheduled airspeed and in a high bank angle? My guess is yes, but it is only a guess. At 850' AGL there is not a lot of room to recover from any stall.

Some of the first flight tests flown with MSN-1 were to confirm the stall margins of the A-400, but those test, like any airplane in flight testing are done at high altitude.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-01-26 05:25:33 and read 10098 times.

Update from AW...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...y%20To%20Take%20Only%2040%20A400Ms

"The Bundestag’s budget committee is expected to follow a proposal made by the ruling coalition to use only 40 of the 53 A400Ms the country plans to order."

"Thus, Germany will buy 53 aircraft but give 13 of them back to Airbus for remarketing."

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-26 05:44:32 and read 10093 times.

Yeah, I just read the aviation week story too. It seems these remarketed German A-400s will bring in funds to Germany, and not as much for EADS.

Also in the story is the E1.5B export facility loan to EADS does not apply the the first 15 exported aircraft, including the 4 to Malaysa. That tells me EADS may have another 11 A-400s set aside for an unannounced order to someone, and not have to repay the export loans for these 15 aircraft, not including the 13 airlifters Germany is now planning to return, or maybe even not taking delivery but putting them into storage until sold again.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...2011/01/26/01.xml&headline=Germany To Take Only 40 A400Ms

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-26 08:37:13 and read 9994 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 48):
"Thus, Germany will buy 53 aircraft but give 13 of them back to Airbus for remarketing."

Politics sucks!

So in essence DE is funding EADS to build 13 white tails.

It's funny how this comes out after the final contracts are signed, not when OCCAR still had the option of cancelling the whole deal.

And we still don't know what is meant by

Quote:

The partner nations also agreed that the aircraft will have six versions, the final one being launched in 2018.

in http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...tions%20Approve%20A400M%20Contract

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
Also in the story is the E1.5B export facility loan to EADS does not apply the the first 15 exported aircraft, including the 4 to Malaysa. That tells me EADS may have another 11 A-400s set aside for an unannounced order to someone, and not have to repay the export loans for these 15 aircraft, not including the 13 airlifters Germany is now planning to return, or maybe even not taking delivery but putting them into storage until sold again.

The article makes it clear the export fund is not repaid until after the 185th aircraft, and of course that the 'founding fathers' are only taking 170 now.

Indeed the 13 German white tails will be part of the first 185 aircraft built.

So the EU taxpayers will wait for EADS to sell the 13 German frames and another 15-4 more for loan payments to even begin(!), so indeed 25 new orders have to be found tuit suite.

Doesn't give that EADS salesman much leverage, does it?

It's not clear if EADS will be obligated to sell the 13 German frames before any new builds.

Lord knows what surprises will end up in DE-EADS remarketing contract!

But it's clear it'll do nothing to stabilize or increase market values for the A400m.

And let's bet how long it will take Boeing and LM pressure the USG into filing a WTO dumping complaint when they do sell them.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-26 09:11:30 and read 9975 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):
let's bet how long it will take Boeing and LM pressure the USG into filing a WTO dumping complaint when they do sell them.

I don't know if international military contract protests can be filed with the WTO.

A few things can happen here.

1. EADS stores these 13 German aircraft, for a fee.

2. Germany and EADS sign a contract for EADS to market these aircraft on consignment for a fee.

3. Germany directly sells the aircraft, from storage at EADS, under something similar to the US FMS program.

4. There may be several other options, either way, the aircraft will be built under the German contract (through OCCAR), and initially paid for by Germany (although payment for these 13 aircraft can be delayed through an EADS/German agreement).

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2011-01-26 09:27:56 and read 9991 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
if international military contract protests can be filed with the WTO

The WTO specifically excludes military contracts from its scope EXCEPT when such exclusions are disguised civil subsidies

Annex 4: Plurilateral Trade Agreements

Quote:
Article XXIII - Exceptions to the Agreement

1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from taking any action or not disclosing any information which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes.

2. Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from imposing or enforcing measures: necessary to protect public morals, order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property; or relating to the products or services of handicapped persons, of philanthropic institutions or of prison labour.

The recent Boeing ruling saw Boeing penalised 24 billion dollars for illegal subsidies routed through the defence business (Specifically NASA and the DoD). Therefore it seems to me that as per the precedent set in the Boeing ruling EADS will be liable to be sued for what is in effect and illegal military subsidy.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...Boeing-24bn-subsidies-illegal.html

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-26 11:59:22 and read 9878 times.

That is an interesting and much appreciated development!

Germany repeats the history of the Transall - of which the sold some aircrafts to turkey!
Maybe turkey will get these 13 aircrafts of the A400M as well, as they ordered only 10 directly.


Why is this move appreciated in my eyes?

Germany should really change their philosophy and build up smaller fleets of more aircraft types, which fit better to their mission.

Like for example:

C 17
A400M
C295

instead of

A400M only

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-26 14:22:40 and read 9819 times.

next week Great Britain and France will announce a similar deal and the market will have a glut of A400 built, paid for and never delivered.      

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-26 15:25:54 and read 9787 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):
So in essence DE is funding EADS to build 13 white tails.

No, as far as I'm aware Germany will in fact buy these 13 aircraft as agreed upon, but then sell them through to somebody else.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-26 15:26:03 and read 9798 times.

Maybe the USAF should take some of those extra C-17s that Congress ordered for them and put them on eBay?  

Then use the funds to buy four CFM-56s for each KC-135E so we could get that silly tanker business over with! 

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-26 15:59:36 and read 9786 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 54):
next week Great Britain and France will announce a similar deal and the market will have a glut of A400 built, paid for and never delivered.

I'll bet the British are keeping an eye on this deal.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
Maybe the USAF should take some of those extra C-17s that Congress ordered for them and put them on eBay?

Then use the funds to buy four CFM-56s for each KC-135E so we could get that silly tanker business over with!

Now there's an idea.   

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-26 16:38:58 and read 9768 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 55):
No, as far as I'm aware Germany will in fact buy these 13 aircraft as agreed upon, but then sell them through to somebody else.

That's why I said 'in essence'. A true white tail is an aircraft built either on pure speculation or after an order cancellation that the manufacturer has to sell on their own. In this case we read "Germany will buy 53 aircraft but give 13 of them back to Airbus for remarketing". So Airbus is not subject to the financial risk that a true white tail would create, but it surely floods the market just like a bunch of parked white tails do, and will surely be a hindrance to future sales till these aircraft have new owners.

It also sends the message that even one of EU's wealthiest nations can't afford to operate as many A400Ms as they would have liked, which makes less wealthy nations really wonder if they can or cannot afford to operate the type.

And it delays the ramp-up of the production line and the field support network.

Not a single bit of good news here for Airbus, I'm afraid.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-26 22:14:25 and read 9714 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
It also sends the message that even one of EU's wealthiest nations can't afford to operate as many A400Ms as they would have liked

That is a wrong statement.


Our country CAN afford to buy these 53 A400Ms, but the whole "Bundeswehr" structure is completely changed in the moment to a international force which means ALL planned equipment have to be considered again. This is valid for the army and navy as well.

That means we will see a much more diversed fleet in some years time against the original planned force with few types only.

It is better to spend the money over several smaller fleets, which are really optimized for their mission, than buying one type only, which should cover all missions.

I am sure Airbus Military will get an additional deal from our forces to provide them with around 10 C295.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: breiz
Posted 2011-01-27 02:34:04 and read 9665 times.

The German Parliament did confirm the purchase of the 53 A400M yesterday:

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 04:02:48 and read 9640 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
That's why I said 'in essence'.

Okay.

One thing to be noted, however, is that production slots for these "surplus" frames are still rather far away – it is quite possible that the political, military and fiscal situation will substantially change until then. It's not as if the frames were gathering dust starting tomorrow...!

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-27 05:11:01 and read 9611 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 59):
Our country CAN afford to buy these 53 A400Ms, but the whole "Bundeswehr" structure is completely changed in the moment to a international force which means ALL planned equipment have to be considered again. This is valid for the army and navy as well.

Then why didn't your country buy the original 60 and resell 20? Answer: cost.

I haven't heard of this restructuring argument in the last year or two when A400M has been in its financial crisis, and all that time DE had the same international commitments.

It's pretty strange to hear it now.

And the message this will send is that the A400M does not fit the international role very well, which also is not good news for Airbus.

Airbus would clearly be happier if DE did like FR did, and take all their frames.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 61):
One thing to be noted, however, is that production slots for these "surplus" frames are still rather far away – it is quite possible that the political, military and fiscal situation will substantially change until then. It's not as if the frames were gathering dust starting tomorrow...!

Yes, one can hope for that, because the current situation truly is non-sensical.

And if there is any sensibility left, those 13 frames will be the '2018 version' (whatever that is), instead of what is currently being built.

Clearly FR is willing to be the lead dog on the A400M program, so let them have all the current ones.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 05:45:17 and read 9594 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
Quoting 328JET (Reply 59):
Our country CAN afford to buy these 53 A400Ms, but the whole "Bundeswehr" structure is completely changed in the moment to a international force which means ALL planned equipment have to be considered again. This is valid for the army and navy as well.

Then why didn't your country buy the original 60 and resell 20? Answer: cost.

You have to know that the main driving force behind this is the junior coalition partner FDP (econo-liberal party) who had tax breaks (meaning: for the wealthy) as their primary election promise and have seen their ratings in decline quite precipitously since the election. One reason being that their promises are patently delusional in the aftermath of the financial crisis which they've been completely unable to acknowledge.

So they are really out for blood at this point after their senior coalition partners CDU/CSU (conservatives) effectively ruling out the FDP promises under the current circumstances.

Cutting A400 orders appears like a great opportunity to maybe still realize their promises or at least presenting the appearance of seriously working at it.

It's one of very few big-ticket items where actual savings at least appear to be possible to them, so away they go.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
I haven't heard of this restructuring argument in the last year or two when A400M has been in its financial crisis, and all that time DE had the same international commitments.

It's pretty strange to hear it now.

The Bundeswehr has been in a constant transformation since at least the fall of the Berlin wall, first having to absorb the former GDR Volksarmee, second completely turning around from exclusively territorial defense to becoming an internationally active intervention force and now third having to deal with the abolition of the draft while being deployed in several combat expeditions.

Nothing really new – everything has been in flux for decades by now!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
And the message this will send is that the A400M does not fit the international role very well, which also is not good news for Airbus.

Erm, that argument is quite obviously nowhere to be seen!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
Clearly FR is willing to be the lead dog on the A400M program, so let them have all the current ones.

That would be completely idiotic looking at the immediate and pressing need for the A400M even today with the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-01-27 08:55:59 and read 9536 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 63):
That would be completely idiotic looking at the immediate and pressing need for the A400M even today with the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan.

Do you envision Germany still being in Afghanistan by the time the A400M reaches operational status and frames get delivered to the German Air Force?
I know the a/c is in testing now, but production versions are probably a few years away and NATO et. al are all talking about quiting the conflict in another year or so.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 09:26:52 and read 9514 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 64):
Do you envision Germany still being in Afghanistan by the time the A400M reaches operational status and frames get delivered to the German Air Force?

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

And even if not, Germany is completely surrounded by EU partners plus Switzerland by now – our military automatically requires transport capacity for any kind of real-life deployment, be it disaster aid, NATO or UN missions abroad. And it is highly likely that we'll be participating in one or more of these at the time.

The days of the exclusive fixed stare at the iron curtain waiting for the soviet tanks are over and won't be coming back.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-27 09:53:22 and read 9496 times.

Thanks for your explanation of the political situation, Klaus.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 63):
Nothing really new – everything has been in flux for decades by now!

Yes, but if that is so, it was just as much in flux as this current contract was being negotiated, when the OCCAR nations could still have canceled the whole program, yet we never heard that Germany's true intention was to keep just 40 frames. As above, this makes the current situation in terms of repayment of the EUR 1.5B loan far worse, and if the other nations knew of DE's intent, I wonder if they would have signed the contract. Note also that DE was the last to sign the contract, so no one else could object. I have a hard time believing the intent to use only 40 frames was not under discussion for quite a while.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 63):
Erm, that argument is quite obviously nowhere to be seen!

It's the natural response to the argument that 328JET proposed in reply 59.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 63):
That would be completely idiotic looking at the immediate and pressing need for the A400M even today with the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan.

Idiotic? We now see UK planning to sell the oldest1/3rd of its Typhoon fleet because they are too costly to upgrade. We know DE is only taking 2/3rds of its earlier requirement, so why not bypass these current birds for ones that have a bit more maturity?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 11:07:05 and read 9457 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
Yes, but if that is so, it was just as much in flux as this current contract was being negotiated,

Can you still remember how different the world had looked to most people (and governments!) before the banking crash near-instantly ripped gigantic holes into national budgets?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
It's the natural response to the argument that 328JET proposed in reply 59.

No. There was absolutely nothing there to indicate lacking capabilities of the aircraft.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
Idiotic? We now see UK planning to sell the oldest1/3rd of its Typhoon fleet because they are too costly to upgrade. We know DE is only taking 2/3rds of its earlier requirement, so why not bypass these current birds for ones that have a bit more maturity?

What positive purpose would there be in keeping a substantial capability gap unfilled for even longer than necessary even so? The contracts already stipulate that the first frames will be upgraded after delivery.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-27 12:42:40 and read 9419 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 67):
Can you still remember how different the world had looked to most people (and governments!) before the banking crash near-instantly ripped gigantic holes into national budgets?

That hole was already wide open as the contract just signed was being negotiated this winter.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 67):
There was absolutely nothing there to indicate lacking capabilities of the aircraft.

Absolutely? Such language...

Anyhow, it said:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 59):
Our country CAN afford to buy these 53 A400Ms, but the whole "Bundeswehr" structure is completely changed in the moment to a international force which means ALL planned equipment have to be considered again.


And if you cut your commitment to A400Ms because your role has grown to an international scope, you are sending the message that the A400M is not well suited to missions with international scope. It's as clear as night and day, Klaus.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 67):
The contracts already stipulate that the first frames will be upgraded after delivery.


Can you provide us with your copy of the contract? I'd still like to figure out what the 2018 version of the A400M is, and how it differs from the current ones.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 13:14:18 and read 9411 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 68):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 67):
Can you still remember how different the world had looked to most people (and governments!) before the banking crash near-instantly ripped gigantic holes into national budgets?

That hole was already wide open as the contract just signed was being negotiated this winter.

Coalition dynamics have been escalating further since then. And the original order (on which the planning with Airbus was ultimately based) originated far on the other side of the banking crisis.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 68):
And if you cut your commitment to A400Ms because your role has grown to an international scope, you are sending the message that the A400M is not well suited to missions with international scope. It's as clear as night and day, Klaus.

Utter nonsense. That might be said if the order was canceled entirely, which it isn't. A reduction of the number of airframes without a replacement order for a different model does not convey anything even close to the kind of message you've been claiming. It simply and obviously says: "We don't have the money to spend on as many copies as we'd liked."

Quoting Revelation (Reply 68):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 67):
The contracts already stipulate that the first frames will be upgraded after delivery.

Can you provide us with your copy of the contract? I'd still like to figure out what the 2018 version of the A400M is, and how it differs from the current ones.

Are you claiming that the reported upgrades will not be performed?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-27 16:15:29 and read 9376 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 69):
"We don't have the money to spend on as many copies as we'd liked."

Isn't Germany actually paying for these 13 airframes, then selling them before delivery? Does Germany already have a customer for them? Someone who may want them but will not order them directly from OCCAR or EADS due to political issues?

I am specualting here but could these be sold to the US Special Ops Command? 13 airframes sounds like the number they would need and by buying them from Germany, and not EADS, the US gets to avoid the extra facility export loan charges.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 17:47:20 and read 9350 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
Isn't Germany actually paying for these 13 airframes, then selling them before delivery?

That seems to be the plan.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
Does Germany already have a customer for them?

I doubt that. The decision is only a few hours old.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
Someone who may want them but will not order them directly from OCCAR or EADS due to political issues?

Highly unlikely, I would say.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
I am specualting here but could these be sold to the US Special Ops Command? 13 airframes sounds like the number they would need and by buying them from Germany, and not EADS, the US gets to avoid the extra facility export loan charges.

That really sounds like a creative idea...   

I would be very surprised, however, due to the major public attention that would create on both sides of the pond (if not for other reasons).

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-27 17:52:20 and read 9358 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 69):
Utter nonsense. That might be said if the order was canceled entirely, which it isn't. A reduction of the number of airframes without a replacement order for a different model does not convey anything even close to the kind of message you've been claiming. It simply and obviously says: "We don't have the money to spend on as many copies as we'd liked."

Klaus, please re-read carefully what 328JET wrote in reply 59:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 59):
Our country CAN afford to buy these 53 A400Ms, but the whole "Bundeswehr" structure is completely changed in the moment to a international force which means ALL planned equipment have to be considered again. This is valid for the army and navy as well.

And re-read what I've written:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 68):
And if you cut your commitment to A400Ms because your role has grown to an international scope, you are sending the message that the A400M is not well suited to missions with international scope. It's as clear as night and day, Klaus.

It is 328JET that vehimently stated that DE could afford all the frames and the reason they were not taking them is because the role of the DE military is completely changed, NOT about cost.

All of my follow-up remarks have been in response to that statement.

So if you have an argument with someone here, it's with 328JET.

And I've made that point already, yet you selectively quote only my statements, and then use insulting language like "utter nonsense", etc.when I respond in the context of 328JET's remarks.

Can't you do better than this, Klaus?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 69):
Are you claiming that the reported upgrades will not be performed?

Klaus, a man as intelligent as you should know you cannot prove a negative.

So will you share with us why you are so sure it is in the contract?

I was hoping you had a copy of the contract, so that mystery about what specs the A400M v6 of 2018 would meet could be solved.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-27 18:13:59 and read 9368 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
It is 328JET that vehimently stated that DE could afford all the frames and the reason they were not taking them is because the role of the DE military is completely changed, NOT about cost.

All of my follow-up remarks have been in response to that statement.

So if you have an argument with someone here, it's with 328JET.

And I've made that point already, yet you selectively quote only my statements, and then use insulting language like "utter nonsense", etc.when I respond in the context of 328JET's remarks.

You drew a conclusion which is simply not there. Neither you nor 328JET have provided any cause for concluding that deficiencies in the A400M's performance had anything whatsoever to do with the reduction of the order.

You keep claiming it, but it's just not there, completely regardless of how much of your posts I quote or don't quote.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
So will you share with us why you are so sure it is in the contract?

The information I've been reading says that post-delivery upgrades are part of the deal (to what exact extent certainly remains to be seen). Do you have any information to the contrary?

I've never said I've got the original copies of the contract. But that is my current state of information. What is yours based on?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2011-01-27 20:41:31 and read 9314 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 68):

And if you cut your commitment to A400Ms because your role has grown to an international scope, you are sending the message that the A400M is not well suited to missions with international scope.

Maybe it does but there is also another explanation for it....
a) that Germany doesn't want a big international role or (highly unlikely since they want permanent UNSC membership)
b) that its international role dreams were out of sync with financial reality. (more likely given the financial crisis)

Quoting Klaus (Reply 73):
Neither you nor 328JET have provided any cause for concluding that deficiencies in the A400M's performance had anything whatsoever to do with the reduction of the order.

True it doesn't - but having observed KCX - you must understand the power of innuendo.
Even if this wasn't cancelled because of performance - invariably at some point such an argument will be made - especially because its weight problems (12 tons overweight - with only 7 tons allocated for possible reduction leaving its Max payload at 30 instead of 37 tons) has been public for a long time.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=awst&id=news/aw012609p2.xml

Quoting Klaus (Reply 73):
You drew a conclusion which is simply not there

True that the current reduction cannot be linked to performance problems - but given the performance problems, is it so outside the realm of possibility that
a) It may have played a role in the secret internal discussions on the subject? and
b) That such a discussion was kept silent so as not to hurt business confidence and German jobs?
c) Realistically do you believe that any discussion on the A-400M be it in the cabinet or the Luftwaffe would not have included any mention of its apparently serious performance problems?
d) What revelation has said here - is invariably the argument that will be hurled against it in every competitive tender later.... true it cant be supported by any published public statements of German officials - But it can be deduced that the FDP would have used every chink to attack the A-400M. yes? I mean what would Westerwelle have said in cabinet? " Kill the A-400 because i dont like its shape?" or kill it "because i dont like its colour" - obviously not

I presume he would have come up with a very reasoned and well researched argument to attack it in private.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-27 22:50:22 and read 9327 times.

To summarize for some people:


Germany is reducing the number of A400Ms not to save money, but to be able to spend this "saved" money on other programs. You all can be very sure our forces would like to get the original ordered A400 number PLUS all other equipment which is needed for international "activities".

But every budget is limited.


There are a lot of ongoing programs in germany plus additionals to come to provide the best equipment for our troops.

Keep in mind that besides the already ordered equipment, the following will be needed:

- Tornado replacement (Gripen?)
- Small transport aircraft (C295?)
- Larger than A400M transport capacity (C17?)
- New helicopters for the navy (Sikorsky?)
- New CSAR helicopters (Boeing?)
- Orion replacement (C295?)

- More new submarines
- Additional corvettes
- Additional fregates
- Landing Ship


etc...
etc...
etc...


So, it is not the case that the A400M does not meet its targets or the program is too expensive.

It just need to be supplemented by other equipment.

Take a look at the USAF:

C5M
C17
C130J

Why do they not focus on the C17 only? Because they need different sizes and capabilities like Germany.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2011-01-28 09:22:42 and read 9131 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 64):
Do you envision Germany still being in Afghanistan by the time the A400M reaches operational status and frames get delivered to the German Air Force?
Quoting Klaus (Reply 65):
I wouldn't be surprised at all.

This is not to be
The Bundestag today voted to END THE AFGHAN MISSION BY 2014

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/eu...y.troops.mandate/index.html?hpt=T2

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-28 12:33:20 and read 9206 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 75):
- Larger than A400M transport capacity (C17?)


I like that note.. since they both cost about the same it's a 1 for 1 swap... providing someone buys the excess A400's... but who.. Mexican or Colombian drug cartels?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-28 15:27:50 and read 9155 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 76):
This is not to be

It's not that simple, yet again.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 76):
The Bundestag today voted to END THE AFGHAN MISSION BY 2014

The crucial stipulation is: "...if the situation in Afghanistan permits it".

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-28 15:48:03 and read 9160 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 77):
I like that note.. since they both cost about the same it's a 1 for 1 swap

They do not cost the same. That is an a.net myth.

Otherwise you would hardly see that the UK will operate both of them...

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-28 16:12:01 and read 9157 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 73):
You drew a conclusion which is simply not there. Neither you nor 328JET have provided any cause for concluding that deficiencies in the A400M's performance had anything whatsoever to do with the reduction of the order.

You keep claiming it, but it's just not there, completely regardless of how much of your posts I quote or don't quote.

Again you show you just aren't reading.

I did not make a claim, all I said is IF what was being claimed is true, then the market would draw a certain conclusion.

I have no idea why you refuse to grasp this and then go on to make insulting comments based on your misinterpretation, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 75):
So, it is not the case that the A400M does not meet its targets

Yes I never read your previous statement this way, whereas it appears others may have. The way I read your statement was that the DE military's needs had changed, so not as many A400Ms are needed.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 75):
the program is too expensive.

If the program cost what it was supposed to count when the original contract was signed you'd have even more "saved money" to spend, sigh...

Quoting 328JET (Reply 75):
Take a look at the USAF:

C5M
C17
C130J

Why do they not focus on the C17 only? Because they need different sizes and capabilities like Germany.

Right, and seeing how many times some has posted the great circle map showing how one can fly A400M from DE to Afghanistan or Iraq non-stop, one could think they are suggesting that A400M customers would have no need to have C-17s, yet what you are saying contradicts that.

However, your statement reflects what the UK has learned. They bought the C-17 when the A400M delays became known, and its clear they find them to be very useful. The firstfew frames were leased, but they decided to purchase them outright pretty quickly.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Klaus
Posted 2011-01-29 02:12:00 and read 9069 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 80):
I did not make a claim, all I said is IF what was being claimed is true, then the market would draw a certain conclusion.

And that connection you're making appears utterly nonsensical to me, since there is absolutely no plausible connection between the actual decision and the conclusion you're drawing, nor have you pointed out how such a conclusion could be reached other than by having a pre-existing opinion to that effect in the first place.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-29 04:24:56 and read 9045 times.

I wonder how closely the German plan to sell 13 A-400s is being watched in the UK? They seem to have the most radical reductions in defense spending to date in all of the EU. The UK could decide to sell some or all of their 22 A-400s upon delivery and just keep the C-130J and C-17 combination already in the RAF. It could help the treasury of Britian, which seems to be calling all the shots in the financial crises.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-29 18:29:44 and read 8873 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 9788 posts, RR: 52

Happy 6th A.net birthday, KC135TopBoom!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
It could help the treasury of Britian, which seems to be calling all the shots in the financial crises.

Yes, after their decision to sell off one third of their Typhoon fleet because they didn't want to pay to upgrade them to the current standard, it would not surprise me to see the UK to sell around one-third or so of their A400M fleet.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-29 19:44:54 and read 8868 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
it would not surprise me to see the UK to sell around one-third or so of their A400M fleet.



the question in my mind remains who will Germany and Britain sell them to???? I see the French maybe selling to their colonies (sort of like the US passing things down to the National Guard) but what the colonies would do with them is questionable...

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-30 07:06:19 and read 8763 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 9788 posts, RR: 52

Happy 6th A.net birthday, KC135TopBoom!

Thank you.

Quoting kanban (Reply 84):
but what the colonies would do with them is questionable...

Gate Guards?????               

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-30 15:06:54 and read 8645 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
The UK could decide to sell some or all of their 22 A-400s upon delivery and just keep the C-130J and C-17 combination already in the RAF

Dream on...  


The UK has already decided to withdraw its C130J fleet after they got all their A400Ms.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-30 15:47:39 and read 8635 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 86):
Dream on...


The UK has already decided to withdraw its C130J fleet after they got all their A400Ms.

In the past, they had decided to take all their planned Typhoons, F-111Ks, only lease the C-17s, etc. Germany, at one time was the A-400s biggest single customer with 60 on order. Then they cut that to 53 airframes, now the Luftwaffe is looking to keep 40 of them. Fully 1/3 of the original order iks not going to be wearing German colors now. Things change....

At the rate the RAF, or anyone else is getting the A-400, the C-130J may be an old and tired airframe by the time it retires.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-01-30 15:57:42 and read 8630 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 86):
The UK has already decided to withdraw its C130J fleet after they got all their A400Ms.

Well, they scrapped their latest Nimrod before deployment, are building 2 carriers and are mothballing one of them soon after deployment, mothballed their only carrier in service, ditched their Harriers one of their last non-EU designed / built a/c, are joining the Royal Navy with the French and you are standing on their promise to dump one a/c type and take delivery of a new one?
I'll believe it when it happens, the economy will have to improve by a lot for that to happen.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-31 01:49:39 and read 8552 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 88):
and you are standing on their promise to dump one a/c type and take delivery of a new one?

They just did the same with the harrier and will do the same with the Tornado.
Both will be replaced by the JSF.

It is not required, as germany will keep the Tornado at least another decade.

And if the A400M fits their needs better than the old Js, which nobody will doubt, then they should go ahaed with a C17/A400M combo only!

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-01-31 03:53:49 and read 8510 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 89):
if the A400M fits their needs better than the old Js, which nobody will doubt, then they should go ahaed with a C17/A400M combo only!

Why? Those military items that cannot be carried by the C-130J can fit into the C-17, and the same can be said for the A-400. The C-130J and -J-30 are cheaper to operate that the A-400 is, with its MTOW of about half that of the A-400. The unrefueled range is about the same. There still is the question about the A-400s weight and can it shed that extra 7 tonnes? This is not only important for fuel comsumption, but in its max cargo weight, will it carry its promised 37 tonnes, or just 30 tonnes?

We are talking about economics here, and it is always cheaper to keep your (currently) 10 year old airplanes, rather than scrapping them at 20 years old and buying a new airplane type. The RAF is planning (I believe) to keep the C-17 for some 40-45 years, the C-130J will last just as long (look how long their C-130Ks have lasted). That puts the C-130Js out to about 2045, or so, and the C-17s to near 2050.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-01-31 07:35:14 and read 8419 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 90):
We are talking about economics here, and it is always cheaper to keep your (currently) 10 year old airplanes, rather than scrapping them at 20 years old and buying a new airplane type

The RAF seems to have a different opinion than you have.

Otherwise they would not replace their Tornado and Harrier with JSFs and their C130J with A400Ms...

And that decision is officially made by the UK.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-31 12:26:09 and read 8346 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 91):
Otherwise they would not replace their Tornado and Harrier with JSFs and their C130J with A400Ms...



They may be wanting to rethink the JSF purchase as well and retain the the older planes.. JSF is starting to be a questionable advance and a very high cost.

But back to the A400m's that will be up for resale... I take it nobody wants to venture a guess as to a customer (s)?

I would think The German Government would have tested the waters and found the idea had potential before venturing this far.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: Revelation
Posted 2011-01-31 12:53:48 and read 8340 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 92):
I take it nobody wants to venture a guess as to a customer (s)?

I bet not, since no one wanted to venture a guess before these remarketed frames were going to be available.

Quoting kanban (Reply 92):
I would think The German Government would have tested the waters and found the idea had potential before venturing this far.

It sounds like it's all politics. The government wants to say they are cutting costs. They could have really cut costs by not approving the contract but instead they did approve the contract. Next they say they will sell the 13 frames but they of course have no actual agreement with Airbus to do so, and have no idea if/when they can be sold or for how much. So for now, all is saved is the cost of staffing and maintaining 13 frames.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-01-31 17:33:34 and read 8257 times.

Can they be modified into water tankers for fighting forest fires? Europe seems to suck equipment from everywhere in recent summer fire seasons...      

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-02-01 01:02:39 and read 8212 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 92):
I take it nobody wants to venture a guess as to a customer

Hey i did already!

I mentioned turkey as customer in addition to their own ordered birds.

But, i have another option: Qatar

Germany and Qatar have strong relations in the business sector and i could see them taking 5-10 birds in addition to their C17s.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2011-02-01 11:25:52 and read 8061 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 93):
I bet not, since no one wanted to venture a guess before these remarketed frames were going to be available.

They better hurry and make up their minds, as Japan might just up and decide to sell their C-2 on the export market.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

VIDEO: In Japan, Kawasaki flies 2nd XC-2 prototype

Quote:
"Compared to the red-striped XC-2 unveiled last year, the second XC-2 sports a new military-gray paint scheme. Japan has ordered the C-2 to replace Lockheed Martin C-130s and Kawasaki P-1s. The XC-2 is similar in size to the Airbus A400M. Instead of the A400M's four turboprops, however, the C-2 fleet will be powered by two General Electric turbofans."

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-02-01 11:53:41 and read 8042 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 95):
Hey i did already!

sorry missed it.. wouldn't want to slight anyone.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-02-02 08:03:26 and read 7893 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 93):
Quoting kanban (Reply 92):
I take it nobody wants to venture a guess as to a customer (s)?
I bet not, since no one wanted to venture a guess before these remarketed frames were going to be available.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 93):
they say they will sell the 13 frames but they of course have no actual agreement with Airbus to do so, and have no idea if/when they can be sold or for how much. So for now, all is saved is the cost of staffing and maintaining 13 frames


.
Would Germany own these airplanes after they are built? If Germany pays for them and parks them somewhere, they don't need any permission from EADS to remarket these airplanes.


Quoting 328JET (Reply 95):
Quoting kanban (Reply 92):
I take it nobody wants to venture a guess as to a customer

Hey i did already!

I did too.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
I am specualting here but could these be sold to the US Special Ops Command? 13 airframes sounds like the number they would need and by buying them from Germany, and not EADS, the US gets to avoid the extra facility export loan charges.

Another possibility would be the CIA. Then they can fly around the world and look like an EU airplane instead of an American airplane.

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-02-02 11:57:38 and read 7834 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Another possibility would be the CIA. Then they can fly around the world and look like an EU airplane instead of an American airplane.

sarcasm -- right?

Topic: RE: General A400M Discussion Thread
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2011-02-03 16:42:31 and read 7661 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 99):
sarcasm -- right?

But of course.............   


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/