Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Three Years Late? Part 3  
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19644 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Part 2 is getting somehow long, so here part 3.

Just if anybody needs to find part 2, here it is:

A400M Three Years Late? Part 2 (by WILCO737 Mar 10 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Enjoy.


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
253 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19628 times:

I'll start. In the last thread (Part 2) I noted this Reuters article in which was alleged that the Luftwaffe would not receive their first A400M before 2014.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...UtilitiesNews/idUSLL03534920090621

This article noted Lockheed Martin's willingness to lease C-130Js for five to seven years.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/19/lockheed-lovin-the-a400m-blues/

Here is a good overview from Defense News.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4149915&c=FEA&s=CVS

Quote:
For the French side, there are four vital factors in reviewing the A400M: price, performance, delivery date and production rate.

The purchase price is rising, which means the French authorities are looking at alternative aircraft, notably the C-130J. The delay has piled up questions: Is the A400M correctly priced considering its capabilities in airlift, range and other parameters? Just how much confidence can be placed on the time scale? The French Air Force has said it wants the plane no later than late 2013 or early 2014 and is looking at forming a squadron of C-130Js as its gap filler.

C-130J Lease?

Collet-Billon said he would recommend a 10-15 C-130J lease but not a buy to Defense Minister Hervé Morin. A lease with option to buy was also a possibility. "We shall see, it must be attractive," he said.

"The most important thing probably is that we must have great confidence in the time scale. We cannot wait too long for this aircraft," he said.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19611 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
Luftwaffe would not receive their first A400M before 2014.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...UtilitiesNews/idUSLL03534920090621

This article noted Lockheed Martin's willingness to lease C-130Js for five to seven years.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/19/lockheed-lovin-the-a400m-blues/

Any idea what version they are interested, if would hope that they go for the stretched
C130J-30.

I do hope Germany follows France example and will lease 10-15 C130Js.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7612 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19557 times:

This is surely LM's opportunity to bury this turkey.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 19554 times:

I didn't want to comment any more on part 2, it was just too long. Good news for LM, bad news for EADS.

The questions remain, what is EADS doing about the 7 tonnes, or so overweight issue, and when will they solve the engine issues?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19541 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
I didn't want to comment any more on part 2, it was just too long. Good news for LM, bad news for EADS.

The questions remain, what is EADS doing about the 7 tonnes, or so overweight issue, and when will they solve the engine issues?

Maybe you should read #2. It seems some folks got a bit over enthousiastic on the issues. The engines work fine, software paperwork had to be redone. EADS says they see no real issue meeting payload range requirements. High OEW is for the first few prototypes.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):

This is surely LM's opportunity to bury this turkey.

Yes they just have to shrink the loads  Yeah sure



Seriously I think LM and or Boeing have to come up with something better. The C-17 and C130-J are old school & don't fit the requirements.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 19504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
and when will they solve the engine issues?

I can't recall where I saw it, either AWSTs or FIs Paris show special, but the engine problems were apparently an administrative goofup where they could not certify the software so it seems a bunch of people had to go through the whole software again to allow the proper paper certification!! that has now been taken care of.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19477 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):
This is surely LM's opportunity to bury this turkey.

The A400M isn't going to be buried by a long shot. There's national pride and European aircraft producer(s) reputations at stake. I suspect the A400M and 787 have something in common. Both have been through a tough pre-production period but once they're in service, the wait will have been worth it.

The problems in the aviation industry today are magnified in a way they never would have been some 50 years ago. The media touches and influences everything. Word travels a lot faster via e-mail and internet communications of one form or another and it takes far less time to take something small and blow it all out of proportion.

Let's give the airplane a chance to demonstrate what it can do once it gets into the flight test stage.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 19417 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):

I can't recall where I saw it, either AWSTs or FIs Paris show special, but the engine problems were apparently an administrative goofup where they could not certify the software so it seems a bunch of people had to go through the whole software again to allow the proper paper certification!! that has now been taken care of.

*IF* you believe that.. but apparently now the engine is waiting on the frame to do ground testing, so where's the truth in this whole mess.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
I suspect the A400M and 787 have something in common. Both have been through a tough pre-production period but once they're in service, the wait will have been worth it.

As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19392 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).

 Confused Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19320 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
I suspect the A400M and 787 have something in common. Both have been through a tough pre-production period

Don't forget to mention the A-380, which, even today is having PRODUCTION problems.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
The problems in the aviation industry today are magnified in a way they never would have been some 50 years ago.

Perhaps, but the B-29 engine and engine fire problems were widly known in 1943 (during WWII). The pre-production problems of the H-1 (Spruce Goose) came out during Congressional Hearings in late 1945.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).

Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?

It will be a lot easier to term the overweight issues of the B-787 (OEW suppose to be about 242,000 lbs) vs. triming weight off the A-400M (OEM suppose to be 154,000 lbs). That 7 tonnes (15,400 lbs) overweight for the A-400M is about 10% of the OEM. The B-787 is only about 5,000 lbs (2.2 tonnes) overweight, or about 2%.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19293 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):

Confused Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

It will be a lot easier to term the overweight issues of the B-787 (OEW suppose to be about 242,000 lbs) vs. triming weight off the A-400M (OEM suppose to be 154,000 lbs). That 7 tonnes (15,400 lbs) overweight for the A-400M is about 10% of the OEM. The B-787 is only about 5,000 lbs (2.2 tonnes) overweight, or about 2%.

Thanks KC135.

Keesje, seeing as none of us have concrete figures and can only go by what the press reports the 400M is a bit more over weight than the 787, with a supposedly reduced functional profile (whereas the 787 will still fulfill it's original functional requirements). Plus the 400M is 'later' depending on which delivery date you use as the first delivery date. Neither program has done well, but the list of screw-ups (in terms of delays) is probably:

748 < 380 < 787 < 400M

Clearly neither manufacturer has done a great job of late, but at the very least the 787 has some hope in sight of finally taking to the skies, while the 400M continues with a game of finger pointing.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19270 times:

The first 6x 787s will probably be 8% overweight. Nobody wants them anymore.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ng-confirms-787-weight-issues.html

Similar the first A400Ms will be overweight, weight reduction are identifed and the Airbus militairy boss says he believes the A400M will meet / exceed requirements later on.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...9/327465/a400m-rescue-mission.html

Comparing initial A400M OEWs with hoped for final 787 OEW's is incorrect.

Comparing final OEW between a passenger and militairy transport long before the first prototype has even flown is questionable anyway.

Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19254 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
a decoy is necessary.

Let's get "decoy-ing" then....
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4149915&c=FEA&s=CVS

Quote:
Airbus was supposed to have delivered its first airplanes to France this year, but instead has said deliveries will be at least three years late because of problems with its turboshaft engines and because the aircraft is at least 7 tons overweight.

Some sources also hint at other problems, including aerodynamic issues stemming from the design of its tail, a notion rejected by Airbus Military CEO Domingo Ureña.

"some sources"? "aerodynamic issues"?
Decoys?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19163 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The first 6x 787s will probably be 8% overweight. Nobody wants them anymore.

The first **6**. How many of the first A400s will be over weight? Do you have a number or are you just adding noise to the arguement in your usual fashion?

I'm wiling to wager you a lifetime ban from a.net that the 400Ms *true* overweight value is worse than the 787s for any frame (as a percentage of specified OEW) in the production chain upto say frame 20? (With the caveat of; if Airbus delays for more than another 6 months to trim weight (or any other cover exucse) then all bets are off)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Comparing final OEW between a passenger and militairy transport long before the first prototype has even flown is questionable anyway.

Didn't see you complaining when you decided to quip:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?

 sarcastic 

But clearly now that you're backed into a corner and you've been proven via published numbers to be wrong you start with the strawmen again. Luckily everyone on this forum knows you are the biggest Airbus cheerleader on A.net and because you have 'seen the A400M' on a tour somehow think it's the physical embodiment of (insert deity of choice here).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.

Not *once* have I ever claimed that everything with completely rosey with the 787 program for the last two years. I openly admit Boeing screwed up royally. I don't need a decoy, but it would be great if you could somehow find yourself able to do the same. Now, I'm sure you'll respond with some random picture of an A400M, quote some outdated and/or irrelevant information in an attempt to destract and 'decoy' everyone from what's really going on with the A400M, but that *will not* change the fact that the program has been an ABSOLUTE and so far, unmitigated disaster. 3 years late and still no first flight, stripped feature set, big OEW issue, untested engines, untested/non-certifiable FADEC. Yes, I'm sure everything is rosey in EADS land.  sarcastic 

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 13):
Some sources also hint at other problems, including aerodynamic issues stemming from the design of its tail, a notion rejected by Airbus Military CEO Domingo Ureña.

I can't help but wonder if these are the same sources that hinted at big problems back when Airbus was sayin everything was fine.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19151 times:

The have "agreed to postphone a decision" on the A400M until the end of July (presumably this year) "to decide on a negotiating strategy on who is to foot the bill for delivery delays". Doesn't sound like there's a consensus yet?
 confused   scratchchin 
http://www.latimes.com/business/nati...u-spain-eads-a400m,0,6691892.story

Quote:
MADRID (AP) — Defense ministers from seven European nations participating in a project to build the troubled A400M military transport plane have agreed to postpone a decision on its future for a month, officials said Monday.

Participating governments have given themselves until the end of July to decide a negotiating strategy on who is to foot the bill for delivery delays with manufacturer, Airbus Military, Spanish Defense Ministry official Constantino Mendez said.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19097 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The first 6x 787s will probably be 8% overweight. Nobody wants them anymore.

The first examples of any new type are always over weight. Airbus is off-loading the first 5 model A-380s, at a discount. Someone will snap these B-787s up. They still beat anything out there for CASM, including your A-330.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Comparing initial A400M OEWs with hoped for final 787 OEW's is incorrect.

Comparing final OEW between a passenger and militairy transport long before the first prototype has even flown is questionable anyway.

Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.

Why not? You were the one who brought it up. Do you remember posting this reply #9?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).

Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
The first **6**. How many of the first A400s will be over weight? Do you have a number or are you just adding noise to the arguement in your usual fashion?

The first 20-25 A-400Ms will not reach the promised performance or payload capability.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
The have "agreed to postphone a decision" on the A400M until the end of July (presumably this year) "to decide on a negotiating strategy on who is to foot the bill for delivery delays". Doesn't sound like there's a consensus yet?

Of course they will. They don't want to pay for all the A-400M screw-ups, and want better pricing. Of course, they do have EADS locked into guarentteed pricing now.

What is EADS going to do with the contracted price for the 8 South Africa or 4 Malaysa A-400Ms Will they get screwed by EADS? Or will they be the first to cancel their orders?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.

Physician, heal thyself.

Tossing 787 attacks out there to try and cover your frustrations with the A400M isn't doing the discussion any benefits, either.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 18987 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
But clearly now that you're backed into a corner and you've been proven via published numbers to be wrong you start with the strawmen again



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Why not? You were the one who brought it up.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Tossing 787 attacks out there to try and cover your frustrations with the A400M isn't doing the discussion any benefits, either.

Incorrect, the 787 was brought up in reply 7 & 8, not by me.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
787



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
787

I reacted to clearly wrong info on the 787 and A400M.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 18933 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
Incorrect, the 787 was brought up in reply 7 & 8, not by me.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
787



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
787

I reacted to clearly wrong info on the 787 and A400M.

The replies in #7 & #8 were clearly NOT attacks on the B-787 program. Their information is correct, the B-787 is late and slightly overweight. But, the A-400M program is clearly far worse than the B-787 program.

Here is what you said in Reply #9:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?

No one has said the B-787 has now reached the OEW target of 240,000 lbs. It will be by ZA-007 or ZA-008. The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane #20.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 18907 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Their information is correct, the B-787 is late and slightly overweight. But, the A-400M program is clearly far worse than the B-787 program.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
No one has said the B-787 has now reached the OEW target of 240,000 lbs. It will be by ZA-007 or ZA-008. The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane #20.

As far as I know Dreamliners #7-20 will also be overweight. ANA will take them under a revised contract. Numbers #21 and further : only promises & hope we have seen before.

On the A400M :

"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.


These quotes from the article linked in reply 12 are of course far from objective, thet are from an EADS manager.

To state "The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane" you need more then gut feeling & hope. You need hard evidence.

On the 787 as well as the A400M we can only know OEW / performance for sure after "production standard" aircraft have entered service. For now its all speculation & vague info used when suitable.

For me as far as I can see the aircraft has the right dimensions, payload and performance, fine engines, a 200 aircraft backlog and no serious competition. Political opportunism and patriotic preferences won't change those basics.

If budget rises, performance on the first aircraft nd entry into service date were that crusial the C-130J and C-17 would not have been in service. Operational need / lack of alternatives was more important. That goes for the A400M too.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 18830 times:

Some light shed on the 6 months versus end of July time frame to make a decision on the program.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...sion%3B-decision-in-late-july.html

Quote:
PARIS --- Seeking major concessions from prime contractor Airbus Military, Britain yesterday vetoed a French-German proposal to extend ongoing talks on the A400M military transport aircraft until the end of the year.

Instead, defense ministers of the seven partner nations (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and UK) agreed to meet again in Paris in late July to decide and how, to take the program forward.

A major advance at the Seville meeting is that ministers determined that, “subject to the fulfilment by industry of certain conditions, the A400M is still a feasible programme.” (see below)




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 18763 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
To state "The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane" you need more then gut feeling & hope. You need hard evidence.

Okay, how about this?

“We completely underestimated [the task]...no military aircraft can be developed in less than 10 years, and in the A400M we are inventing everything,” EADS CEO Louis Gallois told the media this week. He said the company wanted to renegotiate “some technical specifications which are very demanding and costly, but which offer only marginal improvements in performance.

His comments suggested that the powerplants and their software are not the only problems, although he declined to provide specifics. AIN understands that the weight, pressurization and landing gear could also be major challenges.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-with-customers-for-a400m-rethink/

Notice how EADS is now offering France some A-330Fs for the interum?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ure
[quote=Keesje,reply=20]As far as I know

"But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure." ""I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract,"

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
On the A400M :

"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
For me as far as I can see the aircraft has the right dimensions, payload and performance, fine engines, a 200 aircraft backlog and no serious competition.

I doubt you can see across the street. The A-400M has 192 orders. I wouldn't be surprised to see South Africa (8 aircraft) and Malasia (4 aircraft) pull out soon. Then you will be down to 180 orders.

Do you think the UK will also cancel their 25 airplane order? They are already getting C-17s and C-130Js (including the C-130-30J). Why do they need the A-400M now?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 18756 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
EADS CEO Louis Gallois told the media this week. He said the company wanted to renegotiate “some technical specifications which are very demanding and costly, but which offer only marginal improvements in performance.

His comments suggested that the powerplants and their software are not the only problems, although he declined to provide specifics.

It's about functionalities such as automatic terrain following and tanking with the time schedule.. It was published moths ago.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
I doubt you can see across the street. The A-400M has 192 orders. I wouldn't be surprised to see South Africa (8 aircraft) and Malasia (4 aircraft) pull out soon. Then you will be down to 180 orders.

Do you think the UK will also cancel their 25 airplane order? They are already getting C-17s and C-130Js (including the C-130-30J). Why do they need the A-400M now?

KC135TopBoom, all speculation. If the A400M meets its specifications it will be the only dedicated 20-36t platform and no doubt more orders will follow. The C-130 can't fit the required loads and doesn't have airway performance, C-17 costs more then an A380 and is oversized for almost all mission except flying around a main battle tank.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
I doubt you can see across the street.

I think you see things that are not really there.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7612 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 18748 times:

Question is how many operators simply can't wait for the A400M to eventually become available.

25 Post contains links DEVILFISH : The U.K. for one, wouldn't allow the six-month extension proposed by France and Germany..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...sion%3B-decision-
26 Osiris30 : What people are failing to understand is; if Britain bails out (note I said IF), then South Africa and Malaysia will also likely bail. This will incr
27 Revelation : I think they are like us, wanting to know what Airbus thinks the get well plan for the A400M is as soon as possible, so they can make a decision abou
28 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's an Op-Ed arguing that the RAF should walk away from the A400M despite potential consequences, which are: Op-Ed: The Case Against the A400M
29 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Now that is funny, considering the F/FB-111 had automatic TFR some 40 years ago. TFR is not new, cutting edge technoligy. The C/HC/KC-130 has been do
30 Trex8 : that may be what US taxpayers pay but its nowhere near FMS sales prices, Israel 9 for 1.9 billion, Iraq 6 for 1.5 billion.
31 KC135TopBoom : FMS of any US, French, UK, or Russian weapons sytem are often a higher price per unit than what the manufacturing country pays per unit. That is usua
32 Post contains links Revelation : Britain Signals It May Not Pay EADS for Cost Overruns on A400M As all along, it seems the UK has the most strident public posture. DE and FR was willi
33 JayinKitsap : There are ways that the UK could "make nice" on the A400M but also get out of this mess. Agree to keep the deposits already paid in the kitty so to sp
34 Revelation : Intereting compromise. Article says 5.7B EUR is in the kitty now, UK has 25/180 of the original orders, so that's around 800M EUR that the UK would h
35 KC135TopBoom : I think the real question for the UK, Germany, and France is "how long can they wait for the A-400M"? The cargo airplanes the A-400M is to replace, C-
36 Osiris30 : Remember the ownership of EADS when the UK signed on in the first place. One could question whether or not they were ever really interested in the 40
37 Post contains links DEVILFISH : In that respect, the two KC-45 prototypes are being looked at, but there seems to be a problem with ownership, with the USAF also having partial inte
38 Post contains links and images Keesje : The first 120 C-17 costed $43 billion, in 1994 The project was nearly killed but there was no alternative. http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm http:
39 JoeCanuck : Indeed...only 2 out of the three have proven they can fly. So far, there is no final price for the A400 so comparisons are moot. Whatever else can be
40 Post contains links Revelation : The way they are acting is quite telling. 11 Jun: Sarkozy, Merkel Agree To Delay Decision on A400M (by 6 Months) 22 Jun: Ministers Delay Decision on
41 Post contains links Keesje : Yes, that would be interesting, especially while they are again in the process of restoring credibility to their 787 customers (delivery, technology)
42 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Those are FMS, which include a lot more than the price of the airplanes. Things like life time support, etc. What is Airbus selling price each A-330M
43 Post contains links Keesje : As much as they can get, and little competition (the last KC767 was ordered almost 10 yrs ago) Availabilty. With planned production rates, backlog an
44 Revelation : We better not need it too soon, the French Senate says at best the current backlog won't be filled till 2020 or so. But of course there may be 25 ope
45 Keesje : Yes and possibly until 2011, even 2012 or 2013.. A few yrs after that hundreds of Herc's have to be replaced everywhere and it's load have grown. Den
46 Post contains links Rheinbote : Some interesting insight provided by Tom Williams, EVP Programmes, Airbus, at the RAeS Hamburg Branch, 4th June, 2009. http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/p
47 Revelation : Well, now no one can say that Airbus was OK with using the EPI engine after reading Williams's comments, which say the P&WC engine was lower cost and
48 A342 : " target=_blank>http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...s.pdf Indeed! "A380: Some lessons learned Development and certification more or less on time (
49 KC135TopBoom : None of those big armored vehicles, for the A-400M have been designed or built. BTW, do you know how most armored vehicels are transported, it is by
50 Post contains links and images Keesje : Well the A400M isn't doing so bad compared to your beloved C-17 and C-130J http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z.../programschedules.jpg?t=1246316392
51 LorM : And the A-400M has landed on one already and tested its capability and results? Oh wait... I'm not quite sure where you think the A-400M will be immu
52 Osiris30 : STOP WITH THE STRAWMEN ALREADY!!! If you want to play that game, let's talk about the 345/346, 380 and 400M, not to mention losing the tanker appeal
53 Revelation : It seems we may be faced by the ultimate Keesje nightmare, the 747-8 flying before the 4A00M. We will almost certainly be faced by the next-to-ultimat
54 Post contains links Keesje : Osiris30 you respond like an angry child with wild aquisations. Apart from that I see a lot of incorrect assumptions in your post. Where did NG/EADS c
55 Revelation : We know that there was an absurd failure on behalf of EPI to follow standard software development practices required for civilan acceptance. As many
56 Keesje : The world said the 787 was a good product, Boeing would take care of any risk and sold 900. I'm moving a bit in the "see first" direction. The PW pro
57 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : True, as the GAO does not even consider the A-400M. So, stop with trying to find BS stories of how expensive the C-17 is, when the A-400 isn't compar
58 Keesje : lets introduce the Boeing 787 too in the game then. Is the 787 build then? The A400M will probably fly before the end of the yr. 4 prototype are in t
59 NorCal : Don't be foolish, composites are only a concern for Boeing aircraft not Airbus aircraft. Ramp equipment will only smash into the 787s and tear enormo
60 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes, there are three built, and ZA004, ZA005, ZA006 and ZA007 are in various stages of construction. The A-400M will fly before the end of which year
61 Revelation : Yes, but it's certain Airbus did not want EPI and that the decision to use EPI has cost the program at least a year and at least a billion euros. I'm
62 Osiris30 : You my friend are a comedian and a half... You can't deal with the fact I called you on your repeated BS and so you turn to insults. Who exactly is t
63 Post contains links Keesje : Maybe that is why the A400M fuselage is metal ? They sign seperate contracts for that : http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...bal-sustainment-partne
64 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Thats not what EADS-Military says. Advanced structural design incorporating extensive use of composite materials http://www.airbusmilitary.com/standa
65 Post contains links Keesje : " target=_blank>http://www.airbusmilitary.com/standa....html Wings, tail... http://www.a400m-countdown.com/newsletters/6/images/img1.jpg ahh Do they
66 Norcal : You are once again making assumptions based on faulty data. Your most recent quote is from 2001 at $268 million. All indications are that the fly awa
67 Keesje : " target=_blank>http://www.military.com/features/0,1...eb.nl You are free to assume : is the price European airforces will pay for the C-17 Even give
68 Revelation : Thanks to Sen. Boxer, Boeing won't have that problem. Last year's budget keeps the line open till the end of next year. This year's budget will keep
69 Osiris30 : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html I thought I had read that was a 70% power run (which may be full power for cruise/normal
70 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.a400m-countdown.com/newsl...1.jpg ....landing gear doors, under belly, cargo ramp, hatches. I really like how you frame ea
71 Post contains links Keesje : Even the test racks were in connnected and operational. . The engines software wasn't certified. This is no Potemkimliner Why not? Aren't they pushin
72 KC135TopBoom : You forgot to mention, capability, and performance goals, too. I'm sure it was just an oversite on your part, Keesje. Different program, for now. " t
73 Osiris30 : So everything is working but the engines, so the engines are the sole reason for the delay? Seems a number of press articles have conflicted with tha
74 Post contains links Revelation : I was wondering about those requirements. I was reading that the Puma weighs 31.5 tons in basic form, and 43 tons in current form (due to extra armor
75 Post contains links Osiris30 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8588343
76 Revelation : I'm not sure what to make of this. Clearly the UK has laid their cards on the table. Initially they were rebuffed, but maybe FR and the rest has foun
77 Osiris30 : The reality (IMHO) for this project is the UK *must* stay on board. If the French are determined to keep the 400m at all costs (as they have pretty m
78 Revelation : By my rough maths, the UK is about 14% of the orders. I kind of believe Enders when he says the program can survive the loss of the UK if the rest sta
79 XT6Wagon : Maybe Boeing should be jerks, and offer the C17 at 200mil a frame to the A400 nations if they swap thier orders 1 for 1. Or less if the production boo
80 Revelation : It'll be interesting to see if the rest of the customers are so willing to get on with it that they subsidize the UK. Yes, UK's order of 25 is import
81 Columba : Germany is even more protectative than France regarding the A400M. France publically said that they are looking at C130J, Germany has never made such
82 KC135TopBoom : I have a bridge for sale, in Arizona, for you, Keesje. I don't think the French can afford a $50B injection into EADS, esspecially considering the fa
83 Keesje : I repeatedly told you flks the rough comments, thereads and doom scenarios were/ are part of the on going negotiations / politics surrounding the A400
84 KC135TopBoom : Man, what are you smoking, and will you share it with the rest of us? What will you say if cancels for the A-400M start rolling in? Also, at the pric
85 Jackonicko : Of course we Brits are flat broke at the moment, but we need A400M. More C-130Js simply won't do the job we need to be done. Unless and until we thoug
86 Keesje : Let's assume 2000 C-130/Transall/Antonov aircraft are in operation today. Most will be replaced by similar capasity 20 t aircraft. A percentage needs
87 XT6Wagon : issue is that the A400 program is already DEEP into the default period of the contract. The UK can ask for its money back and expect to see it... and
88 KC135TopBoom : With just USAF production, the C-17 line is open through 2011. India is looking at (posibly) buying some C-17s, as well as some other ME countries. S
89 Post contains links Keesje : I see LM developping a C-130 replacement at some point. Simply giving up their segment seems odd. I think it is more likely they'll design something
90 Jackonicko : "With just USAF production, the C-17 line is open through 2011." Not quite. Some remain to be confirmed. But even if that's true "India is looking at
91 KC135TopBoom : NG is not now, nor have they ever been part of the A-400M program. Their only contract with EADS is on the KC-30 deal, and that might eventually add
92 Jackonicko : The RAF LOVES the C-17. It needs more. The RAF is starting to like the C-130J. It needs something bigger/faster/better. More -130Js is not a good plan
93 KC135TopBoom : When you compare how fast the C-130Ks are wearing out, the current availability of the C-130J and the fact the A-400M is a minimum of 4 years away be
94 Keesje : KC135TopBoom, I wonder what your is the the disthrust in the A400M's specifications, performance specifications, time schedule, price, basicly everyt
95 Jackonicko : The C-130J/C-17 option makes NO SENSE at all for the UK - except in the interim. It may be American, and you may thus be blind to its faults, but the
96 Revelation : The key word here is "promises". I can see why A400M is attractive when it was supposed to be half a C-17 at half the price. Right now it projects to
97 KC135TopBoom : I have no problem with the designed size, or promised performance of the A-400M. But, at this point (15 years into the program), the manufacture, EAD
98 Post contains links Keesje : The A400M was officially launched in May 2003, so 6 yrs. To include all kind of studies is an odd choice. If you prefer so, most program lenghts must
99 Post contains links Revelation : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/bu...obal/12airbus.html?_r=2&ref=europe It's interesting how on your posts about the 787 you say the best informati
100 Revelation : Did you read the report? Here's a summary of what it is saying: What the report says is the DoD originally asked for 205 airframes, but Congress only
101 Jackonicko : KC-135TopBoom, I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse, are a -130J marketeer or genuinely can’t see the big picture. But the simple fac
102 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Read that 1995 GAO report again, Keesje. It says nothing of the kind. Lets begin with the link to the NY Times that Revelation posted; http://www.nyt
103 Keesje : Look at the data, market situation and all the facts that leak out. I do not have a politcial agenda to leave out / highlight certain parts. Most jou
104 Post contains links Bennett123 : http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html IMO, the most worrying part is not what they say. It is that nothing has been said on their website this year
105 Jackonicko : KC-135TB, You really do like yesterday’s aircraft, don’t you? KC-135-sized tankers and C-130 sized transports – both of them wrong for modern op
106 Post contains links Lumberton : According to the editors note at the bottom of this article, the French and UK are asking Airbus to step up with their checkbook over the consequences
107 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : You seem to use them in your B-787 arguments. LM has sold, delivered, has on order 200 C-130Js. That includes the 6 options that India has. That is a
108 Jackonicko : "This is the first time I have heard anyone say the C-130J has a short fatigue life. I am interested in why you feel that way, and where you got that
109 Post contains links Lumberton : Bloomberg reporting that the UK may just ditch the A400M. Negotiating ploy? As I posted earlier, the UK and French seem to be taking a hard line with
110 Revelation : I think the "price" number looks all out of whack compared to its capabilities, given the known direction of the current negotiations. We hear the "p
111 Revelation : Given that Airbus says they've spent all the down payments and are burning through 120M Euro per month, maybe they have cut back on the press departm
112 KC135TopBoom : That is the bottom line on the argument.
113 Lumberton : "Bottom line" depends on the priorities and perspectives of the customers. Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the A400M will be "marg
114 KC135TopBoom : From the military operator perspective, the crews who will put their lives on the line flying this, or any airplane, that perspective sucks. If the A
115 Keesje : You seem to have a strong doubt the A400m will meet its requirements. the biggest reason for this it has not flown yet so nothing is proven. Isn't th
116 Post contains links Revelation : I think he isn't saying that, he's saying that meeting the requirements could very well take more money than Airbus or the customer is willing to spe
117 Revelation : And Your second part argues against your first. Since it's not a "tip of the spear", I wonder how much money the customer nations will spend to say t
118 Post contains links and images Keesje : Dogs bark in the distance, the train rolls on.. Britain and France said on Tuesday they were committed to “finding a positive outcome” for the A40
119 Lumberton : Keesje, if the UK and France insist that EADS bears 90% of the costs, then that would meet the "some of the pain" requirement, right?
120 Post contains links Keesje : I do not know. As you, Revelation and KC-135 also do not know. What becomes clear again (at least for me) is that the comments by analyst, opposite M
121 KC135TopBoom : I have doubts the A-400M will meet its requirements because that is what its manufacturer, EADS, and the various governments who placed orders for it
122 Post contains links and images Revelation : Ref: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...%5C07%5C08%5Cstory_8-7-2009_pg7_44 But the sentence before this quote says: Interesting sentence to have
123 KC135TopBoom : As everyone can see, Keesje putting any quote that is positive about the A-400M, gives him the right to take to whole quote out of context. After all
124 Revelation : It's interesting to see the rosy view of the A400M yet in the 787 thread he chooses to correlate smoke from the brakes on a refused take-off test to
125 Racko : The USAF buys the KC-45. The European Air Forces buy C-130Js and C-17s. It would be so easy, nobody would lose his face and tax payers on both sides o
126 Lumberton : I know that I proposed this compromise around 2 years ago (maybe before that!), Racko. However, I think the time has passed for this.
127 KC135TopBoom : Yes, the global economy has made sure any compromise like that has passed its time. The EU workers would see this as a cave in to the US, as the KC-4
128 Lumberton : Hmmm....the prices of each might be broadly similar by the time the A400 is ready as well, although I would expect the cost growth on the A400M to ex
129 Post contains images Revelation : Yeah, but it's SUCH a SEXY airplane, especially the refuelling boom! Those swirly propellers really turn me on!
130 KC135TopBoom : That will not be on any US model, ours would have a refueling receptical. With the proposed new EADS price per airplane, it already exceeds the price
131 JJJ : You like them chubby, huh?
132 Revelation : You had to bring up the whole US model, did you? For that to happen, we'd have to see something like the Army FCS Manned Ground Vehicles resurrected,
133 Keesje :
134 DEVILFISH : I understand some like it BIG, but isn't that WOTT? Now you're taking this fetish thing to dangerously deadly turns!
135 KC135TopBoom : Sorry, I thought Keesje would bite, and make us a nice new picture of a USAF A-400M refueling from a USAF A-330MRTT. Keesje, I have proved the price
136 Post contains images Columba : Nothing against that sight, but I would also like to see a USAF KC135 refueling a German C17 painted in dark green (would be a nice change to all the
137 Astuteman : Presumably not having a more capable aircraft because of the delays? So would "EADS bears 10%" So what's the point? Like the USAF has never had to co
138 KC135TopBoom : Yes, I would like to see that too. All the C-17s look the same, that gray paint is getting boring. Unfortunately, yes, they have had to compromise, b
139 Astuteman : My question was specific to cost overruns, and defence (defense?) procurement the world over is riddled with "compromises" My own company, quite infa
140 Revelation : Aren't you presuming I'm asking for a wait and see approach on the 787 and 748? Actually, I'm quite skeptical about them too. Recent events on A380,
141 Astuteman : This is indeed correct. And was "presumptious" of me.. Rgds
142 Revelation : No problems, A-man. I'm an equal opportunity grouch!
143 KC135TopBoom : In the 1990s, the USN A-12 project was cancelled (by Rumsfeld) for excessive costs overruns and the fact the A-12 would (initially) meet perfromance
144 Jackonicko : The RAFs latest generation Nimrod had cost overrun problems, too. I don't know all the spiecfics, but now the RAF is getting 3 USAF KC-135Rs convertin
145 Post contains links Keesje : Emirates paid about $300m, and Nato about $350m (incl spares). http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLO58161920090224 http://www.defenseindu
146 KC135TopBoom : Correct, their contracts include things like spares, maintenance, and training. What is South Africa and Maylasia paying for their A-400Ms? Or is the
147 Revelation : The UK has $200M-$300M to spend per midsized transport times 25, yet can't fund a few intelligence assets? Doesn't make much sense to me. Indeed he d
148 Post contains links Keesje : - Those aren't tens of millions per airframe - Aren't spares included in the seperate C-17 sustainment program? http://www.deagel.com/news/Boeing-Aw.
149 KC135TopBoom : Yes, it is. Many of the contracts go for 10, 20, or more years. " target=_blank>http://www.deagel.com/news/Boeing-Aw....aspx Come on now, did you rea
150 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : It's understandable that they may favor some commonality with the Global Express-based Sentinel, or even a contract with L-3 for the Rivet Joint.....
151 Keesje : Most likely. But I wonder if a 737 based EP-X has the legs. The EP-3 can probably do do 18 hr flights unrefuelled like PC-3 if needed.. You would nee
152 Jackonicko : I like the EP-X, but it's not right for UK requirements, and nor is Rivet Joint. It's not a matter of 'legs' - it's a matter of kit, space and number
153 KC135TopBoom : Then why not build that capability into an A-310-300 platform, or better yet, buy up the BA B-767-300ERs and convert them? If the RKC-135R (USAF Desi
154 Revelation : Interesting point, but it does seem to be bucking the trend. It seems governments aren't willing to bite the bullet on a large multi-mission aircraft
155 Jackonicko : "Then why not build that capability into an A-310-300 platform, or better yet, buy up the BA B-767-300ERs and convert them?" Cost. Risk. But an A310 i
156 KC135TopBoom : Do RAF crews still fly with the USAF on operational RC-135s missions out of RAF Mildenhall? I know they did, at least back in the 1980s. I don't know
157 Post contains links and images Keesje : Do all those folks have to be in the aircraft for the next 30 yrs? I can imagine if multiple high bandwidth networks are available with powerfull wel
158 Jackonicko : "Do all those folks have to be in the aircraft for the next 30 yrs?" You've unwittingly highlighted a real strength of 51 - they really do have people
159 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : I see that we have derailed this thread much. But the new subject is quite interesting and provides a worthwhile diversion from the long-running topic
160 KC135TopBoom : Currently ELINT/COMINT/SIGINT are mostly hands on manned systems because the manned systems are better than the automated systems on platforms such a
161 Jackonicko : Nice try, KC TB! I'll now drag us off topic again. Devilfish, ”Incidentally, aren't those refuelling probes on the Nimrod?.....” They are, though
162 KC135TopBoom : I tried Are they thinking the refueling had something to do with that accident? I have not been following what happened to her lately. They have been
163 Jackonicko : Refuelling was part of the accident chain. We've returned to AAR and suspended it several times since. Currently the MR2s and R1s are not doing AAR.
164 KC135TopBoom : Is the (suspected) problem with the tanker or receiver refueling systems/equipment, or is it the procedures used?
165 Jackonicko : The repeated suspension of AAR since '230 marks a real fear that there has been a possibility of a recurrence. That possibility has been slender, but
166 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Thank you for the update. Here is part of the MoD's BOI report on the loss of Nimrod VX230. Of interest, it seems Nimrod VX227 also had a fuel leak p
167 Jackonicko : It's XV, not VX. Nimrods aren't assigned to squadrons, (except the R1s which do belong to 51) instead they are centrally serviced and centrally held b
168 Post contains links A342 : To get back on topic, let's not forget that there is a western alternative with similar payload-range performance, the Kawasaki C-X. Unfortunately, un
169 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Correct, but it will be offered for international sale in the commerical market. It is a very impressive airplane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawas
170 Post contains links Lumberton : This report from Der Spiegel, the A400M will go on--no surprise to those of us that opined that the airbus countries will pay almost any price to keep
171 KC135TopBoom : I am surpirsed that the UK is staying with the program. EADS will fly the thing, whether it is ready, or not. I find these two paragraphs interesting;
172 Jackonicko : It's really not that hard to understand, KC. Anyone could understand it, unless they were being deliberately obtuse, or unless they (they, not you, le
173 Revelation : [repost of a removed quote] Above it was said the taxpayers will pay for all of this delay and pain in order to ensure that the air forces finally get
174 Astuteman : In my experience of defence contracting, especially recently, it's not usually quite as simple as that... The purchasers usually have a part to play
175 Revelation : In an effort to focus on the A400-M, maybe you will share with us the benefit of your 25 years of experience and tell us exactly who you think is scr
176 Jackonicko : Two fundamentals: One: Wrong engine choice. Two: Wrong choice of certification methodology. I don't really agree that it's been that badly executed. I
177 Revelation : That explains the cost and schedule overruns, but doesn't explain the inability to deliver the intended range, payload and functionality.
178 Jackonicko : The exact extent of the failure to deliver specified/required range and payload and functionality can't yet be ascertained - for obvious reasons. Thos
179 KC135TopBoom : I don't think your comments are rude. You see your position, and I see mine. there is nothing wrong with debating those differences. Then perhaps EAD
180 Jackonicko : A VH-53 is a non-starter, I'm told. The White House lawn won't take it! The A400M won't have as little payload as a C-130J, and even if it does, you'l
181 Tarheelwings : Gentlemen, allow me to interject in this very fascinating thread. As someone who has extensive experience in the government procurement field (curren
182 Keesje : Maybe if we keep repeating the A400M won't meet payload range targets, it will become a little true in the minds of the readers. Last time I checked
183 Jackonicko : "Could Lockheed not have said something along these lines......" They did.
184 KC135TopBoom : I mentioned the C-130J-30, the streched C-130J, that carries a heavier payload then the short bodied airplane. The C-130J-30 has a payload of 29 tonn
185 Post contains links Revelation : Not to mention not building out the B-1A, B-2 and now F-22 fleets to their anticipated levels. Why not, It's already a big truth in the minds of the
186 Post contains links Keesje : The C130-30 has marginally more payload the a short C130J, about 1 tonne. It's made for volume. Nothing close to 29 tonnes. Non-sense. It's like sayi
187 Tarheelwings : Based on the cancellation decision reached by the government (which of course was based on out of control expenses), I would say the PMO either didn'
188 NorCal : Since when is Spiegel a U.S. source? Key statement being, "We believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range...." That doesn't sound very de
189 Post contains links Revelation : And we can also find articles saying the 787 would fly two months after 7/8/2007 and that the A380 wiring issues were due to the customer's choices w
190 Post contains links Lumberton : The Germans are saying the delay will be 4 years. http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSBAT00308420090723 WRT to the capabilities, Herr Jung'
191 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes, the F-111 and seprate FB-111 buys were also cut short, as was the C-5A, KC-135, C-141, F-14, and F-15s. " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.
192 Revelation : Time to change the title of this thread. So much for "full commitment". As I said, it won't mean anything till the next round of contracts are signed
193 Astuteman : That is, of course, a title that is quite capable of migrating to the the other side of the Atlantic fairly quickly..... Caution might be in order...
194 Post contains links Revelation : If you are referring to the 787, that wouldn't bother me a bit, but for originality's sake, perhaps another name should be picked. http://en.wikipedia
195 Revelation : Maybe the Penguin, since it looks really nice but it can't fly?
196 Post contains links Lumberton : The airbus countries apparently agreed that they will "renegotiate" the contract. What's to renegotiate? The size of the check? http://www.reuters.com
197 Post contains links Lumberton : More. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLO8808920090724?rpc=44 Despite the "hard line" stand in the media, I suspect these countries will
198 Astuteman : IMO, from the wording, the parties appear to be squaring up to a "face-saving" solution whereby the A400M contract gets re-negotiated to EADS satisfa
199 KC135TopBoom : Of course the Dodo bird is extinct, and has been since the 1600s. So, like the current examples of Dodos (stuffed), the A-400M is also a flightless b
200 Revelation : I think the problem is the size of the check the customers write can't grow very much, so what will be negotiated is performance, functionality, deli
201 KC135TopBoom : So, if the funds the customers can spend is limited, then the capabilities will be reduced to match the sales price?
202 Revelation : That's what I see happening. Some sort of initial program that fits within the current budgets, then some optional incremental programs that will add
203 Revelation : Yes, I have been saying EADS has been holding all the cards for quite a while now. And at one point I thought they were at risk of overplaying them,
204 XT6Wagon : To be fair, I think the A400 should have been designed with the extra features in mind, but not included with the first batches to reduce the complexi
205 KC135TopBoom : The A-400M is not a complex airplane design. It is no more complaicted than a C-130J. Being able to air refuel (a ground kit is installed for the mis
206 Astuteman : I did indeed, KC. I also forgot to include the differences, like the A380 is actually flying, and in service now.... You make this sound completely u
207 KC135TopBoom : The A-400M, C-130J, and C-17A were all built with the primary mission of carrying boxes and other cargo. True, they can be adapted to do other missio
208 Racko : So at the end of the day, an A380 (NO DASH!) and a 787 are no more complicated than a DC-8?
209 Revelation : You make it sound as if the A400M customers didn't sign a contract that gave them protections against cost overruns. There was much talk about how th
210 KC135TopBoom : No, that is not what I said. While the A-380 (with dash), B-787, and DC-8 are all commerical airliners, they are at different levels of technoligy. T
211 Astuteman : Sorry, KC. don't see anything whatsoever in those arguments which supports the view that the A400M is not complicated. I've seen the same sort of BS
212 Racko : May I ask why? I consider it rude to deliberately and continuously misspell the name of all aircraft of a manufacturer which you just happen to disli
213 KC135TopBoom : No, I've never been offered a job with EADS, or Boeing, but was offered once with MD, close to 20 years ago. Actually, I'm not being rude, nor am I "
214 Revelation : I imagine this is what LM was thinking on VH-71, and yet, the SDD contract for VH-71 is canceled and 600 workers laid off. And the same argument you
215 Keesje : I think if the C130 was a Mach 0.7, 37 tonnes payload, tanker, terrain following, fly by wire, soft terrain capable, tactical / strategic transport f
216 Post contains links Revelation : I wonder what percentage of that Airbus has a good handle on. Seems the engines can account for two of the four year slippage, and even that is dubio
217 KC135TopBoom : A new record, taken away from Keesje. Correct, Revelation. Keesje, the C-130J was not design, nor ever claimed to carry 37 tonnes or fly at M 0.7. Th
218 Astuteman : I can live with that... Rgds
219 KC135TopBoom : Me too.
220 Revelation : Me three! See, we can all agree on something!
221 KC135TopBoom : There is hope for peace between the US and EU.
222 Wvsuperhornet : Just a question and not trying to stir any european vs american aircraft, but why continue to waste money on the A400M why not just buy the C130J is i
223 Lumberton : I suspect you didn't read through this or the previous two threads. What is at stake for the airbus countries & EADS on the A400M are: 1. Jobs. 2. In
224 KC135TopBoom : Additionally, the A-400M is a bigger and wider airplane than the C-130J, or C-130J-30. The A-400M is sized between the smaller C-130J and bigger C-17
225 Post contains links Lumberton : Der Spiegel has weighed in with a new report on the A400 program. Essentially, it appears that the Luftwaffe has been told to "shut up" and wait. No s
226 Columba : In 8 weeks we have elections in Germany until then I expect no decision regarding the A400M or a potential interim solution like the lease of C130Js.
227 Post contains links A342 : If things get really bad, maybe some of the South African Air Force Transalls could be made operational again and delivered to Germany as a stop gap.
228 Columba : There are being scrapped right now, C130s would be best interim solution. There are enough German pilots that flew the Herc with other airforces. Mai
229 CheetahC : They were scrapped earlier this year, only one left in the museum at Swartkops.
230 Post contains images CheetahC : SAAF C-160s being scrapped Any ideas as to when the SAAF will start receiving the A400M? The current C-130 fleet is over 40 years old making them some
231 A342 : How sad. Why did the SAAF retire them so early?
232 KC135TopBoom : Typical politicians, putting their own careers ahead of the lives of the Luftwaffe that will have to put up with a late and less than promised, but m
233 Wvsuperhornet : No I like to read don't get me wrong but with all the posts on this story it would be like reading war & peace again. Thanks for the info!!! Thanks I
234 KC135TopBoom : I still think that every customer for the A-400M should just cancel now, instead of throwing good money after bad, and buy the C-17, instead. That wo
235 Columba : No, I think it is time for a new generation of airlifters, therefore the A400M must be build but C17s should be bought in addition to it
236 KC135TopBoom : Actually, I agree with that as a much better idea. Such a program can incorprorate the failures and successes of both the C-17 and A-400M programs.
237 Post contains links and images Keesje : . Airbus: Keeps Goal Of First A400 Million Flight Around End Of 2009 http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/act...-flight-around-NL0000235190-719782
238 Revelation : Wow, that's great, given that first flight was supposed to be last year and first delivery was supposed to be this year! To bad no one can yet say wh
239 Columba : Still better then the 787......which on the other hand is still doing better then most European military programs, the Eurofighter was once called "F
240 Revelation : Still, the quoted article is pretty amusing, proudly proclaiming they still are bravely hanging on to the "goal" of flying "around the turn of the ye
241 Post contains links and images Keesje : Do you suggest delayed aircraft can't be succesfull? Have a bite.. The A400M was launched in May 2003, but please forget (again) http://www.flightglo
242 Revelation : No, I didn't, not sure how you came up with that. All I suggested is this current article is amusing spin. Each of those other programs put out amusi
243 Spacepope : A400 Million... I think we've found the new nickname of this aircraft! Or is that the final price including spares?
244 Astuteman : The sort of comment that seems par for the course these days...... Amusing or not, there should be targets to work to, even if they're not the origin
245 Revelation : .. but perhaps more realistic ... We've heard that the FADEC software was only being held up for paperwork several months ago. It wouldn't surprise m
246 KC135TopBoom : Didn't they say that in 2007?
247 Post contains links Keesje : I think the capabilities & price are not there to fullfill the operational requirements. Moving main battle tanks is not a requirement, soft terrain,
248 KC135TopBoom : EADS has said the airplane will not meet its contract specs. Hmmm, the B-787 is 2 years late, the A-400M is at least 3 years late.................. N
249 Keesje : KC135TopBoom, do really mean that, is that what you believe? Do you have a link KC135TopBoom ? I think the C-17 line is close to completion and the C
250 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes, I do believe it, after all, EADS has said it. The French Senat has also said it, or did you forget that? http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...
251 Keesje : KC135TopBoom, it doesn't say the A400M shorter ranged C-130J carrying the same weight nowhere in neither link. Can you provide a link supporting what
252 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : You know very well I posted those links months ago, in the part 2 thread, I believe. You also know the French Senat was questioning the capabilities
253 Post contains links Scbriml : Please continue discussion here in "part 4" A400M Three Years Late? Part 4 (by KC135TopBoom Sep 13 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) Any furth
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A400M Three Years Late? posted Fri Jan 9 2009 11:59:35 by Scipio
France To Buy C-130J If A400M Further Delayed posted Fri Jun 5 2009 14:30:43 by N328KF
40 Years Ago - Apollo 10 posted Sun May 24 2009 10:39:59 by GDB
US Auditer; Mil. Programs Over Budget And Late... posted Mon Mar 30 2009 22:50:01 by JoeCanuck
Large Part Of Russian MiG-29s In Bad State posted Fri Feb 6 2009 05:08:40 by Levent
Air Force One/The Nixon Years posted Thu Feb 5 2009 21:27:30 by Tiger119
Another Look: AN-70 Vs A400M posted Mon Jan 26 2009 11:36:20 by SCAT15F
TP400-D6 (for A400M) Completes First Test Flight posted Wed Dec 17 2008 05:51:36 by Zeke
KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2 posted Fri Sep 5 2008 03:40:43 by Scbriml
4th Aug - 70 Years Ago, Spitfire Entered Service posted Mon Aug 4 2008 11:18:14 by GDB