Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Three Years Late? Part 4  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 26798 times:

This thread is also getting very long, time for part 4.

300 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 26821 times:

From FlightGlobal Sept 3 :

First A400M moved outside for ground tests. It will now undergo fuel and pressurisation tests and navigation and communication system checks, says Airbus Military. It will then have its four Europrop International TP400-D6 turboprop engines and auxiliary power unit installed, following the delivery of the final full authority digital engine control software, it adds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oved-outside-for-ground-tests.html



User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 26786 times:

Keesje,

I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed? Also, how do they pressurize the fuel system before the engines and APU are reinstalled? I read the Flight Global story you cut and pasted, so I know where you got that info from. It just doesn't make any sense to me to do the fuel systems checks, pressurizations of the fuel system checks, and comm checks without engines and APU.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 26783 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Also, how do they pressurize the fuel system before the engines and APU are reinstalled?

They will plug off the fuel and vent lines and pump air in to them. They will do the same thing with wing tanks. Install plugs in the fuel and vent tubes and pump air into the tank.

Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26743 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
They will plug off the fuel and vent lines and pump air in to them. They will do the same thing with wing tanks. Install plugs in the fuel and vent tubes and pump air into the tank.

Thanks

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 26732 times:

So much so that Turkey is contemplating an interim buy of C-27J Spartans or EADS' very own C-295s.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...terim-buy-of-c-27js-or-c-295s.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 26672 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed?

According to the article it has to do with the FADEC software, which caused the biggest hick-up. Further more I guess they rescheduled additional enhancements / mods resulting from testing after it became clear the aircraft's first flight was delayed. Items that would have been modernized / replaced / after certification will now be before. Just like e.g. and the RR Trents for the 787.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.

It will have serious implications for the test flights, program scheduling, political support and damage EADS credibility! (if they forget the plugs) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/c141/c141_wing_05.jpg


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 26588 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed?

According to the article it has to do with the FADEC software, which caused the biggest hick-up. Further more I guess they rescheduled additional enhancements / mods resulting from testing after it became clear the aircraft's first flight was delayed. Items that would have been modernized / replaced / after certification will now be before. Just like e.g. and the RR Trents for the 787.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.

It will have serious implications for the test flights, program scheduling, political support and damage EADS credibility! (if they forget the plugs) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...5.jpg

Yes it would.

I remember that C-141B, it was scrapped, but in the 1980s the same happened to a B-52G at Mather AFB, CA and a KC-135A at Pease AFB, NH. Both were eventually repaired by Boeing and flew again. IIRC, it was over a year before either was ready for the FCF flights.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 26553 times:

In the latest issue of Flu Revue the commander of the German Air Lift is interviewed. According to him there will be no interim solution. "The Transall is old but still safe and reliable we can easily fly it until 2020"


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 26542 times:

Wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets changed to 4 years late at this rate.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 26516 times:



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
Wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets changed to 4 years late at this rate.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 26497 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 8):
In the latest issue of Flu Revue the commander of the German Air Lift is interviewed. According to him there will be no interim solution. "The Transall is old but still safe and reliable we can easily fly it until 2020"

 bigmouth  No no! Replacements are urgently needed, the Luftwaffe can't wait  banghead , everybody said so, interim C130J / C17s must be ordered and EADS must pay for them !! Please !!

 Wink


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26477 times:



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
Wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets changed to 4 years late at this rate.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
Quoting Columba (Reply 8):
In the latest issue of Flu Revue the commander of the German Air Lift is interviewed. According to him there will be no interim solution. "The Transall is old but still safe and reliable we can easily fly it until 2020"

No no! Replacements are urgently needed, the Luftwaffe can't wait , everybody said so, interim C130J / C17s must be ordered and EADS must pay for them !! Please !!

Well, if the Luftwaffe thinks their C-160s will last for another 10 years, then a further delay of the A-400M will not hurt them. At current projections, they won't get the first one until 2016 or 2017, fully a two-three cushion?

What will the Germans, French, British, or Spainish do if the A-400M has another lenghty delay, or worse, increases in price by the current estimated 30%? How attractive will the C-17A/C-130J combo look then?


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 26445 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Didn't the USAF Pop a KC-135 during a cabin pressure test back in the late 80s because the dump valves were closed?



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 26359 times:



Quoting Sinlock (Reply 13):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Didn't the USAF Pop a KC-135 during a cabin pressure test back in the late 80s because the dump valves were closed?

Yes, but that was earlier in this decade, it was a KC-135R. It happened at the TIK Depot, they over pressurized the fuselage during a ground pressur test, but had all the outflow valves plugged. No one completed the checklist to assure the outflow valves were not plugged. There are three outflow valves, one in each wheel well.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 26339 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed?

Some info on why the engines may be off the A400Million from Aviation Week:

Quote:
Sources close to the Europrop International engine consortium say that FADEC issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. The EADS chief executive said earlier this month that once an acceptable standard FADEC was provided, the A400M could fly around one month later. But in addition to software, there are also hardware issues surrounding the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The sources say that upgraded casings already have been delivered to the Sevilla, Spain, final-assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

Some special operational performance goals also are in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. The A400M may not be able to fly “Sarajevo profile” steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

Finally, some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), people familiar with the program say. The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.

So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 26308 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.

So much for "just paperwork and software issues."


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 26265 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 16):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.

So much for "just paperwork and software issues."

Any new aircraft has hundreds of findings during testing. Some are more serious then others and business cases are made on solutions and implementation. Thought you knew..

..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.

Maybe we can some some to suggest big possible problems. Maybe ask Doug McVitie, he worked for airbus you know.. Just bringing up possible disaster can have some value for some I guess  Smile http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Dou...le=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26193 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 17):
Any new aircraft has hundreds of findings during testing. Some are more serious then others and business cases are made on solutions and implementation. Thought you knew..

Feel free to enlighten us with your in-depth knowledge. The CEO said the A400M could fly one month after getting the FADEC software and many sites report that the FADEC software was delivered in July. Since we're in mid September and it seems it will be a struggle to get first flight this year (with suggestions already of it creeping into next year), what is going on?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 26132 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
  No no! Replacements are urgently needed, the Luftwaffe can't wait   , everybody said so, interim C130J / C17s must be ordered and EADS must pay for them !! Please !!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Well, if the Luftwaffe thinks their C-160s will last for another 10 years, then a further delay of the A-400M will not hurt them. At current projections, they won't get the first one until 2016 or 2017, fully a two-three cushion?

We have a federal election in 2 weeks, let's see how it will look afterwards.
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 26085 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Well, if the Luftwaffe thinks their C-160s will last for another 10 years, then a further delay of the A-400M will not hurt them. At current projections, they won't get the first one until 2016 or 2017, fully a two-three cushion?

We have a federal election in 2 weeks, let's see how it will look afterwards.
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.

Thanks, depending on who wins the election, it could be a game changer for the A-400M, C-17A, and C-130J.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26039 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
game changer for the A-400M

yeah, instead of 4 years late, it'll be 5. lol.

Seriously though; its quite common to have issues with new aircraft. When companies make their schedules, they make them on best case scenarios. They really shouldn't do that though. Boeing is getting slammed on the 787 as well because of delay after delay. Even certain major modifications will take longer than originally expected, and have issues that they don't anticipate when they make a bid (ie the C-5M) I wouldn't be surprised if a mix of all three aircraft you listed are involved at some point. Might be 15 years from now, but you never know.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 25756 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
We have a federal election in 2 weeks, let's see how it will look afterwards.
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.

I'm not close enough to UK politics to know how much longer the Liberals will be in power, but it seems this article says A400M faces a program review if the Conservatives get in and an outright cancellation if the LibDems get in (yeah, right). This article hints EF, carriers and A400M will be scrutinized should the Tories come to power.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 25564 times:

I can understand the political aprties wanting to drop the A-400M, as it is doubtful it will do what the RAF wants it to do. But dropping the Typhoon for the RAN and the two CVFs for the RN just doesn't make sense to me. If the CVFs get canceled why would the RN/FAA need the F-35Bs? Then there is also the issue of possibly loosing shipbuilding experience, which has a long and proud tradition in Britian and Scotland.

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7615 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 25510 times:

IMO Labour will not call an election until April/May 2010.

Basicly they must go for it by May and have no obvious reason to go sooner.


25 KC135TopBoom : Labour is the party in power right now, correct? But if the Conservitives were to win an election next year, what will that mean to the A-400M progra
26 Scbriml : The party in power really makes zero difference. They'll all say one thing to get elected and then do whatever they want when in power. Just like a U
27 Revelation : I hope the A400M will be flying by then. If there's one more big surprise by then, and the government changes hands, the A400M may be swept away by t
28 Jackonicko : Really big cuts in Government spending are now inevitable in the UK, regardless of who gets into power. The Lib Dems are a third party, and the prospe
29 Keesje : ' Well I can understand their position on the Typhoons, the A400M seems neccesary whatever happens / strategy is chosen, the carriers.. we'll I can't
30 Jackonicko : Well I can understand their position on the Typhoon I can't. When we launched the Typhoon programme it promised to provide a 700-aircraft boost to the
31 Burkhard : I even doubt that. Whoever wins the election will have to drastically reduce all expenses for years - and will want to delay the A400 at least as muc
32 Post contains links Keesje : I think what you say is all correct. But 1990 is not 2010. Typhoon's multi-role versatility is a paper one and its main weakness. Its a good intercep
33 Jackonicko : Low level: Check (just look at the pics of them storming through the Mac Loop) Air to ground: Check (six EPW and a Litening III is better than GR4 can
34 Bennett123 : Jackonicko You forget that the F22 is not for sale.
35 KC135TopBoom : Correct. Politicians are politicians, no matter what country they are in. If the A-400M cannot fly for the next 9-10 months, the British won't have t
36 Jackonicko : C-17 is great, and we could use more. It is not a -130K replacement. We've used carriers, sure, but we haven't NEEDED to use them, there have always b
37 KC135TopBoom : I don't know that the F-15SE is inferior to an A-G Typhoon, the F-15SE is an A-G airplane first with a very good A-A capability, much better than the
38 Post contains links and images Keesje : The Lockheed Martin C-130 which serves as the Europrop International TP400's flying testbed is due to make two more flights "next week", after which i
39 Jackonicko : KC We need more airlift, and I'd love to see some more C-17s. But we need an A400M sized aircraft, too, as soon as we can get it. In the long term, a
40 KC135TopBoom : You can have the extra nine C-17s when ever you want them, I am not so sure about when you can have your A-400Ms. But, doesn't the RAF already fly so
41 Jackonicko : It does (24, in fact). They'll soon be out of hours, the walloping they're getting now. And the A400M will be a much better aircraft.
42 Revelation : Maybe it is when you read the original datasheet, but the real question is what will the data sheet read at the time of initial deployment? And what
43 Jackonicko : The C-130J did not enjoy a trouble free start, as the RAF (as launch customer) know only too well. And for modern requirements, it's simply got too sm
44 Revelation : So what is your point? Contractors should feel free to deliver substandard equipment to the RAF? The real question is will you ever get an A400M that
45 Jackonicko : The C-130J made good eventually. (And we got two free as a result of all the dire problems Lockmart inflicted on us). I dare say the A400M will come r
46 Keesje : Now what if the A400M just meets / beats its performance target just like the e.g A380, A340NG, A330/340, A320, A310 and A300 ? For some dark, eurocr
47 Revelation : Is that all you can add, mockery? Guess you have no real answers. Even you must admit the trend line for A400M clearly is not following the trend lin
48 Post contains links Keesje : Some updates: Structural static tests including maximum loads/ wing flex completed in June TP400 cleared for 1st flight, has clocked up 3100 ground hr
49 ArniePie : Maybe you could clear things up a bit pls? What are these "optional customer configuration items and equipment" supposed to be? And are these options
50 KC135TopBoom : The RAF NEEDS an A-400M to perform to the original specs., something EADS says they cannot do right now. In how many years? First, there are very few
51 Post contains links Revelation : Says: Seems the end-June software was too buggy to use, but no one from Airbus said so at the time. Next we have the Aug 25 version and now a "final
52 Keesje : Don't know. Maybe fuel tank / receiver / wing pods, stretchers, seats, crane, cargo loading systems, combinations of those ? Can you link them? First
53 KC135TopBoom : Airbus really doesn't care about its creditability with its EU customers. It has already played the "unemployment card" by "reminding" each country h
54 CheetahC : So the third aircraft is only scheduled to fly in a bit less than a year from now, does this make sense?
55 A342 : You're right, they EXCEEDED them. In fact, the A310-200's fuel burn was 6.5% LOWER than expected. Source: Peter Müller, Airbus, page 185. Vienna, 19
56 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : That's not what I have. But if there is a version in English, I'll get it. My German isn't what it use to be. Danke vielmals! Okay, sorry, I got that
57 Jackonicko : Why are you Yanks so desperate to run down the A400M? Do you work on the C-130 line, or what? The fact is that even in its initial service entry form,
58 474218 : The RAF having just A400's and C-17's would be like BA having just A380's and 777's. Both the A400 and the C-17 are listed as strategic transports, y
59 Revelation : Why rush to build a lot of planes that aren't all that representative of the final product? Just trying to make sure you "non-Yanks" see both sides o
60 XT6Wagon : To be fair they were talking about making the payload numbers in the near term. Of course doing the math this means that its extra wieght will requir
61 Jackonicko : 474218, A400M is ‘right-sized’ for the kind of ops we now conduct with the C-130K and J. It’s a tactical transport with strategic capabilities,
62 Revelation : It's strange to me how in tne tanker thread we see fanboys saying Airbus's track record with its airliners shows the A330 tanker will of course be a
63 Astuteman : Anything Boeing can do.... ? Well, brightened the day up, anyway. Rgds
64 Revelation : Surely you see the difference between building 180 frames with no competition for a tolerant customer versus building 800+ frames under competition f
65 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think only selected a.net members have convinced themselves the A400M must be screw up so the C130J/C17 look better. I won't call them US Boeing gr
66 KC135TopBoom : Is that why more C-130Js have been sold than A-400Ms? About 210 C-130Js have been sold, most delivered, compared to 192 A-400Ms, none delivered, it i
67 Revelation : I think those vehicles will eventually have to be built, but I also think they will be too heavy for A400M to move them very far if at all. Maybe the
68 Post contains links Revelation : Some news from that Yank publication, AvWeek: A400M Deal Near, Airbus Says: So we're looking at first deliveries right around new year of 2013. I wond
69 Jackonicko : Revelation, The A400M is less screwed up than C-17 or C-130J – programmes which it’s natural to use for comparison when talking about this class o
70 474218 : Just how were C-130's getting smaller, I have never heard of aluminum shrinking before? The C-130J flew before the A-400 was even launched. One addit
71 KC135TopBoom : Than why haven't any A-400Ms sold in the last 4 years? The C-130J has sold airplanes in the last four years, including in Europe. The A-400M has just
72 XT6Wagon : When the needs of the users grow, but your product doesn't grow to match its called getting "smaller". Look at the progression from a WWII Jeep to th
73 Revelation : Purely your opinion, and I'll ignore the name calling. Wedgetail is screwed up and Boeing is paying penalties to its customers. A400M is screwed up a
74 KC135TopBoom : Let me see.......isn't that 4 years late? At this rate, the A-400M will make an excellent replacement for retiring C-130s, that is C-130Js.
75 Revelation : Time to start a new thread: A400M Four Years Late.
76 Jackonicko : "Purely your opinion, and I'll ignore the name calling." Yes. My opinion as a professional observer of this scene, and someone who saw the service int
77 Revelation : Which matters exactly how, Princess?
78 KC135TopBoom : Only the C-130J showed up late for the RAF, not the C-17. What does that have to do with anything?
79 Jackonicko : It was an answer to YOUR question.... You wrongly inferred that the relative sales figures for the flying, in-service C-130J and the as yet unflown C
80 Revelation : Jacknicko, I hope I'm not being obtuse now by saying that finding programs that may or may not have been or still may or may not be bigger screw ups t
81 Jackonicko : Well, as a taxpayer in a country waiting for A400M, I find the knowledge that other broadly comparable programmes have been bigger screw ups, have suf
82 KC135TopBoom : The RAF initially ordered some 24 C-130Js in 1994, with initial deliveries in early 1998. IIRC they got their first C-130J in late 1999, some 15 mont
83 Revelation : Jackonicko, I'm gald that type of context makes it easier for you to deal with screw ups. Seriously, if it helps you out, it's all good. As for me, I'
84 Post contains links Bennett123 : http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html What I find disturbing is the big blank since Christmas 2008.
85 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : They have not "updated" this page, either. http://www.airbusmilitary.com/effectiveness.html Seems the purchase costs and LCC have "grown" a little. N
86 Revelation : Indeed. They are still negotiating a new contract, and have refused to honor the original, so they really can't update it. The point is that no one k
87 KC135TopBoom : The points are their "refusal to honor the original " and the fact they have no idea what the LCC will really be, as you mentioned.
88 Post contains links Keesje : 6 A400M press releases in 2009, http://www.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/all.html
89 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/....html Where are they? Please break them out, I don't see anything on the A-400M
90 Scbriml : There are, as he claimed, six releases for the A400M on the page he linked to. If you do a "find" on the page, you'll see them. They're not hidden in
91 KC135TopBoom : I didn't say they were hidden. I just could not find them. Now I found 5, and it is all old news that we have discussed before. They are about how EAD
92 Post contains links Keesje : I guess you better re-read reply 48. The process seems to be under control, the A400M will probably meet its tagets and the first aircraft may fly th
93 KC135TopBoom : With a meeting coming up in a few weeks about the A-400M project, I suspect very little will come out of this meeting. IIRC, all of the EU customers
94 Post contains links and images Keesje : Flight trails of TP400 on C130 completed, engines refitted on #1. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEA328920091001 http://www.flightglob
95 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html I find this wording very cautious from EADS; http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ted-
96 Post contains links Lumberton : BTW, anyone see this little "side show"? South Africa is looking into "irregular expenditure [sic]" with "no supporting documentation" of much money c
97 Revelation : I'm glad to see the flying prototype is close to flying. They have another 3 months to make their goal of flying this year. I hope they make it. That
98 Post contains images Keesje : He is not 100% sure. Do you blame him for that. To many overconfident execs in this industry.. So in S Africa the Department of Defence (DOD) receive
99 Jackonicko : Marshall Aerospace have announced that the risk reduction work on the engines and FADEC using the C-130 testbed (54 flying hours?) is now complete.
100 KC135TopBoom : If this turns out to be a big problem in South Africa, someone could spend some jail time. I agree with that. The way I read it, it is the SA Defense
101 Trex8 : lets place our bets!!! FRANKFURT (Reuters) - The A400M military transporter made by Airbus (EAD.PA) is set to have its maiden flight as soon as Novemb
102 Jackonicko : KC, The problem you have is that you compare the A400M to the C-17, and it isn't really comparable. It's not a C-17 replacement or alternative, it's a
103 Par13del : Some have touted it as "a poor man C-17", I look at is as an alternative to a C-17, definately not a C-130 replacement, unless the C-130 goes out of
104 Astuteman : Could do with a lesson from our howitzer guys, perhaps..... Now if you want to talk about a REAL 777... Rgds
105 KC135TopBoom : The C-130 did the job it was designed to do and did it well. It still does those jobs well today. The same can be said for the C-17, both are well pr
106 Jackonicko : The problem is that when the C-130 cross section was decided, the jeep ruled the day, and the helicopters that needed air-lifting were UH-1s and Bell
107 Zeke : Not going to happen, too much to do. They have started the engines installed on the A400M, but they are a long way off flying it by Nov 30, I would s
108 Jackonicko : They're throwing a lot of resources at it.
109 KC135TopBoom : You do know the LM is studying a newer wider and taller version of the C-130? I have no idea if this will ever be more than a study. Yes, you are rig
110 Zeke : I know, and a lot of people are pretty motivated to get some holidays.... Didn't you say the 747-8 would fly this year as well only recently ? The gu
111 Columba : No it is an alternative for countries that need something bigger than the C130J but can not afford a C17. The C130J is a great aircraft but it can no
112 XT6Wagon : Problem is that it looks like the per-frame cost of a A400M is now up to the USAF's cost for a C17, and not far off the export customer cost of a C17
113 KC135TopBoom : Yes, I did. I am very disappointed in Boeing for not flying the B-747-8F this year. But, it seems they would rather fly the B-787 this year, which th
114 Post contains links Zeke : Nice to have an A400M update, looks like EADS think the second aircraft will fly early 2010 http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/422/ Some other intere
115 Post contains links Revelation : Great! I'm looking forward to it. Yet now the infantry figting vehicle rules the day, and A400M looks like it's coming up short with the base-line Pu
116 KC135TopBoom : I am just hoping for the first one to fly. But, having 3 flying by mid 2010 will work, too. What is it about the July roll-outs of shells?
117 Revelation : I guess I'm still intrigued by this statement. The weight of a Hummer isn't a problem for A400M or C-130J but it would seem buying planes now presumi
118 474218 : The real "bottom line" is that 95% of the time the A400M, like the C-130, the C-17 and the C-5 will not be carrying anything but people and palataliz
119 KC135TopBoom : Not true. The C-130 rotinely flys within 10% of its max cargo weight, or cubes. The C-17 and C-5 often cube out long before the max cargo weight, unl
120 Revelation : Not that I trust your figures, but you could also be saying 95% of the time fighters don't fire their missiles or drop bombs. The military mission is
121 Post contains links RedFlyer : Airbus thinks otherwise... http://www.tiscali.co.uk/business/ne...airbus-reaffirms-a400m-flight.html
122 Post contains links Lumberton : More news from South Africa. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...&art_id=nw20091014223027854C130292
123 Post contains links Zeke : Not really, when asked if the A400M will fly on Nov 30 as stated in the German magazine "Focus" they had this to say in response... "Many dates will
124 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.tiscali.co.uk/business/ne....html My hope is the A-400M will be ready to fly this year, not simply flown just to get FF ou
125 Post contains links A342 : On October 13, Airbus stated that the A400M is scheduled to fly this year: "Airbus Military is getting ready for some important milestones such as the
126 KC135TopBoom : Yes, but they have also said that a few times before 13 October, IIRC. I actually want it to fly. But I want it to fly when it is safe and ready to d
127 CheetahC : Those eight aircraft are apparently going to cost R47bn, the current exchange rate is R7,35:$1. That's R47 000 000 000 / 7,35 = $6 394 557 823.13 in
128 Spacepope : Looks like we were way off in calling it the A400million!
129 KC135TopBoom : Wow, even if Boeing doubled the price of the C-17, it is still half of the 8 A-400Ms.
130 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's another article on the SAF A400M purchase. Note that now its being called a "scandal". It appears that cancellation is a real possibility. Howe
131 Jackonicko : Firstly, the figure is WRONG. South Africa's respected Engineering News says: "European military transport aircraft manufacturer Airbus Military has f
132 KC135TopBoom : Many governments look at the bottom line for the total costs of a military aircraft program. So, the total R47B is right, from South Africa's prospec
133 CheetahC : While I do agree with what you say, it is not only the fly-away cost that matters. At the end of the day X amount of money must be paid with everythi
134 Jackonicko : KC-135 Toppers R47 Bn is WRONG as an overall SA programme figure and has been explicitely denied by Airbus. Whatever the total programme cost is, it i
135 Revelation : We won't have any meaningful price figures till the new A400M contract is signed.
136 KC135TopBoom : Well, all I have to go with right now is what they are saying in SA, and what EADS is saying. That is limited from both sides. Those are the current
137 Post contains links Zeke : They want to move away from a "civil aircraft" style contract arrangement they have in place and move to a a contract which is more representative of
138 Revelation : I am glad that it seems the A400M will be deliverable at close to the original performance specs. It'll be a huge step forward, but the question in m
139 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Apparently, EADS and the various governments are looking at streching out the delivery dates, and number each year, to help control the cost increase.
140 Revelation : I don't think it'll control the cost increase, it'll just make it easier to deal with, no? In essence the customers are saying they can only afford X
141 Galaxy5007 : Actually, $202M was in FY1998 dollars. According the the DoD, the cost has risen to $328m in FY2008 dollars. I stated in another thread that they wer
142 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Each customer country can now budget the same number of Euros, but accept fewer A-400Ms per FY. Yes, it would make more slots available for future cu
143 Post contains links CheetahC : Some clarification on what South Africa will be paying: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...ntent&task=view&id=4694&Itemid=386 Sipho Thomo seems to
144 KC135TopBoom : You did see at the bottom of the link it is partially sponsored by EADS, didn't you? It seems the writer also like to play with numbers by still usin
145 Revelation : Indeed, and pay for a longer number of years, pushing out other programs because Airbus dropped the ball on A400M.
146 EBJ1248650 : Wasn't the A400M designed to meet the current airlift needs; i.e. needs that didn't exist when the C-130 was first designed? This business of comparin
147 Post contains links Galaxy5007 : http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pol...022609_fy10_topline_weapons_costs/ There is one of my sources, I can't find the other one that backs that up, b
148 Keesje : Thnx for the link. I think those prices are in line with wath we have seen for recent foreigh sales (Canada, Australia, Qatar). These prices are poss
149 XT6Wagon : Why? Airbus itself does. It wants to prove the C130 is hopelessly obsolete, and the C17 simply too large for "tactical" operations and too expensive
150 Galaxy5007 : No problem. It even says on the table that there is a 55% cost increase since the original bids. As noted on the site; “Total Cost” and “Per Un
151 KC135TopBoom : Exactly Not according to EADS, it was designed to replace the C-130 and be a cheaper alternative to the C-17. Today it does neither. " target=_blank>
152 Galaxy5007 : It was dated in February 2009. At that point, the funding for the 15 C-17s beyond the 190 was still in the air. Now we are at 213 actually. 08-8190 w
153 NicoEDDF : Don't you all scream and hit the brickwall with your fist until blood is shed by the sheer ignorance in this thread??? Most of the post are factual wr
154 Post contains links Revelation : They will be, if we accept them, and I do not! In the US, the Obama administration shut down the VH-71 program because it was heading for massive cos
155 Zeke : You have no idea of the contract terms, no do I. This is a pure assumption on your part. Again you have no idea of the actual contract terms. Boeing
156 Galaxy5007 : 213, and the Senate just approved funding for 10 more in FY10 bringing the total to 223.
157 Post contains links Revelation : Wrong again, Zeke: Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSLB35317920090211 So, as opposed to having NO idea of the contract terms, I do have
158 KC135TopBoom : Thanks for the update. The contracts signed in 2004 and 2005 are still the current contracts. I believe there is another meeting between EADS and the
159 Zeke : The person you have quoted HAS an idea of the actual contract terms, but unless you are the CEO of EADS that is being quoted, YOU still have no idea
160 CheetahC : But you seem to have agreed earlier that this was the lifecycle cost, not just an increase in unit price. At this stage SA doesn't really have much c
161 XT6Wagon : ? Why EADS is clearly in breach of it contract and that coupled with the apparent illegal manner in which is was procured... Its clear that SA can ca
162 CheetahC : We need the aircraft and it is unlikely that we will/can choose any alternative. I suppose the only other option is the C-17, but I don't think it co
163 Revelation : Since I've been asked to stick to the topic at hand, I'll simply say that I feel my original comment: is more than adequately supported by the followi
164 RedFlyer : You forgot to mention what I consider to be one of the most high-profile defense procurement cancellations in recent memory - the Navy's A-12 carrier
165 KC135TopBoom : SA has said the numbers include LCC, maintenance, training, spares, aquisition costs, and an estimate of the costs of charter operations due to the A
166 Zeke : All this "talk" of EADS not making good on penalty payments for the A400M, please remind us all when the contractual A400M EIS date actually is ? The
167 Post contains links CheetahC : The R17bn figure was quoted by mr Thomo during his R47bn announcement: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...ntent&task=view&id=4694&Itemid=386 I do
168 Post contains links ArabAirX : http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43854&dcn=e_gvet
169 KC135TopBoom : Murtha seems to have forgotten the Senate adding 10 more C-17s, for $2.5B also includes spares and the first two years of maintenance on them. The pri
170 Revelation : Not from me. What I said was "Airbus is doing its best to avoid those provisions". Big difference between trying to avoid provisions in the future ve
171 Lumberton : But it does give credence to the proposition that if you lay down $200 million, you can drive one off the lot. And that is very, very close to the Fr
172 Post contains links Keesje : Incorrect. The price is nowhere the hugely expensive main battle tank carrying C-17's and I have seen nowhere compromises on short soft field perform
173 Revelation : Actually they should have started years ago....
174 XT6Wagon : keesje, you don't add 5+ tons to an aircraft without affecting its performance. More so when its a huge % of the total wieght. The 12+ tons of the pr
175 Zeke : It is nice of you to pick an choose .... the latest update ... " target=_blank>http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/422/
176 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, the French Senate is very concerned about the new price and capability of the A-400M Wrong, Keesje, as usual. You have been given nu
177 Zeke : Actually the paragraph I quoted did talk about the possibility of higher costs. The FADEC software development has been a total stuff up. The engines
178 Post contains images Keesje : So what? So what? Various phases are not approved as long as they aren't. Then they are. A few days ago the KC30 had not passed fuel through its boom
179 KC135TopBoom : Thanks, I didn't know they screwed it up earlier. EADS says late this year, or early 2010.
180 Post contains links Zeke : Yes that was in the news a while back ( http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/pri...400m-transport-aircraft-2009-05-08 ). Keep in mind the A400M software
181 XT6Wagon : ? Yah cause the civilian C130 sold like hotcakes. sigh.
182 Zeke : The engine or a derivative of it may well find it way onto a civil fixed or rotary wing aircraft, and more and more military bodies are requiring new
183 Post contains links Columba : I often wondered if Airbus/EADS will use the A400M engines for a 90 seats Turboprop.If I recall correctly Kessje has also put some thoughts into this
184 KC135TopBoom : I don't see any reason why the TP-400 engines cannot be used in a commerical aircraft. Would the software be different than the software used for the
185 Post contains images Keesje : E.g. the ATR72 need less then 2 x 3000 shp. The 11.000 shp TP400 would be much to heavy & powerfull for such an aircraft. (the aircraft I powerpointe
186 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : It must be feasible then to use two TP400s to make a twin-engined Hercules, such as the envisioned "fat" C-130XL with a bit of wing and wingbox steng
187 Post contains images Keesje : Adding those engines would rquire an entirely new wing. A TP400 was put on a herc for testing but it was a very noise, heavy suboptimal configuration
188 KC135TopBoom : Yeah, lets hope thises things don't repaet themselves on the A-400M. A new C-130XL would be a good idea, for the USAF, and other Air Forces that don'
189 Post contains images Keesje : I think Embraer is taking care of the 20t segment. the French ordered it recently to replace old Herc's and i guess they won't remain the only one. T
190 KC135TopBoom : I just don't see the KC-390 replacing the C-130. Yes, France bought 12 of them in a tit-for-tat deal with Brazil buying the Rafial. France said nothi
191 Bennett123 : If it can replace the C160 in France, how about Germany.
192 KC135TopBoom : It can, but EADS won't let Germany order the C-390. France got away with it because they run EADS/Airbus.
193 Lumberton : I believe they also satisfied the other airbus countries that it would not result in a reduction of their (50) order.
194 Keesje : It seems you have a rather strange perception of Europe, EADS and France. I don't know where to start & I think don't its even neccessary Lets just w
195 Post contains images DEVILFISH : It's plausible that solutions could be found to design the anomalies out of the arrangement. After all, there is the whole A400M program as the risk-
196 Post contains images Keesje : I think it would be smart of LM to developped an aircraft that fills a different niche then the A400M. I have predicted in the past at some point a n
197 Post contains links Keesje : The flight-test program of the A400M’s Europrop TP400 turboprops, mounted on a Lockheed Martin C-130 testbed aircraft, has been completed at Marshal
198 KC135TopBoom : Why, there is only one operational airplane in that catagory now, the An-70. It would be a "C-46", "C-47" (if the USAF recycles those designations fr
199 Revelation : It seems the An-70's 47T target payload is a lot better suited to present and future IFVs than is A400M's 37T target payload.
200 KC135TopBoom : Exactly my point, as would a possible 35-40 tonne C-130XL
201 474218 : Why would LM (or any other manufacture) waste there hard earned money developing an aircraft for which there is no market. I think you will find that
202 Post contains links Cargotanker : Greetings all, I agree with many here that the A400M seems well positioned in the not-so-distant future to fill a market gap between the too-small C-1
203 Zeke : The AN-70 is not operational, or for that matter certified. I would be very surprised if that payload level is achieved, the maths just does not seem
204 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-X Actually, the C-X would be a much better choice than the A-400M, but you have to get past t
205 Cargotanker : Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 202): It seems to outperform the A400M in most major categories Such as ? Here's a few (data for the C-X is sketchy, I can'
206 KC135TopBoom : I think I'm becoming a fan of the C-X already.
207 Keesje : Topboom we knew already the C17 is better and probably cheaper and the C-130 proven and unbeatable. Now we can add the CX and an-70 to list. Yes, MHI
208 Post contains links Revelation : Many here see the A400M as having many unknown/unknowable properties, and costing almost as much as the C-17, and delivering less than half the paylo
209 Post contains images Keesje : True of course. There was another poster here recently that claimed the old, Nat Guard, limitted series, ugly Sherpa's play a key role in Iraq / Afgh
210 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Those are coming..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...rtan-set-to-join-us-air-force.html Quote: "The Air Force will field 38 C-27Js, operated
211 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Perhaps a typo, Keesje? MHI (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) is in no way related to KHI (Kawasaki Heavy Industries). Mitsubishi (MHI) built the F-2A/B
212 Post contains links EPA001 : Just as for the B787, also the A400M is still to enjoy first flight this year. It should take place just before Christmas in Sevilla, Spain. This was
213 Zeke : They look like YC-X numbers to me, not C-X numbers. Not a single way a 350 billion yen project can deliver an aircraft at 80 million a pop with 50 pr
214 KC135TopBoom : I guess the 2004 & 2005 contracts they already signed are not good enough for EADS? Of course he is, EADS has already played the political card, thre
215 Zeke : Okay then, list the current fly away price for the A400M and C-17. It just lifts cargo, just like the 737 combi aircraft the US DoD have, it is not m
216 KC135TopBoom : Okay. The current price of the A-0400M is around 104.3M Euros, not counting the requested 30% price increase. Some international customers of the C-1
217 Post contains links CheetahC : SA has cancelled. http://www.fin24.com/articles/defaul...cle.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2560151
218 Keesje : " target=_blank>http://www.fin24.com/articles/defaul...60151 Seem understandable to me. Massive costs rising, other higher priorities, maybe corrupti
219 Post contains links Lumberton : I doubt they'll be the last. Meanwhile, South Africa is looking at alternatives. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCNWEB445820091105?rpc=4
220 KC135TopBoom : I agree So what will the SAAF be looking at to replace the canceled 8, +6 options, A-400Ms? C-17A? C-130J-30? C-130XL? An-70?
221 BlackProjects : C-17 is the Ideal size as a C-130 can not lift the weight that the A400M can and the C-130XL is still years away while the C-17 cam almost be purchase
222 Cargotanker : [ Zeke, I don't understand where you draw the line between tactical and non-tactical. Sure the C-130 can go into places C-17s can't. C-27s, U-28s, and
223 KC135TopBoom : Zeke doesn't understand the difference between tactical and strategic missions, nor does he believe the C-17 can do both. I'm interested in what he h
224 Cargotanker : A400M - They just cancelled it C-130J-30 - The Defence Minister wants strategic airlift, which the C-130 doesn't offer C-130XL - Just a big C-130 and
225 Stitch : What I found interesting is Reuters is saying the deal for those eight A400Ms was worth $5.2 billion, which is $650 million an airframe. Keesje makes
226 Keesje : I think the SA government concluded financial risks became unaceptable for the country. No doubt (after a cool down) EADS will make them an offer aga
227 474218 : $5.3 billion would include spares, crew training, manuals including revisions and technical support.
228 Revelation : Financial risks? What are you talking about? The planes were just too late and just cost too much money. Can't put it more directly than that, no?
229 AutoThrust : Looks like this is the A400M and EADS a.net bashing thread. Interesting how some do search extensively reasons against the A400M and in favor for the
230 Stitch : Of course it does, just as all of that factors into the $1.2 billion UAE C-17 deal. But certain posters obfuscate that fact when quoting C-17 prices,
231 KC135TopBoom : HELLOOOO Keesje, SA canceled the A-400M because it was getting too expensive and is running 4 years late. While it is true the A-400M is aimed at a s
232 Post contains links Lumberton : Good deal for India if this happens; 10 C-17s for $1.7 billion. Kind of puts paid to the notion that the "C-17 is just too expensive". http://www.defe
233 Keesje : Boeing wants to keep the line open.
234 Stitch : The Indian Air Force selected the C-17 back in June. The order has been in review by the Indian Defense Ministry. Well in June the deal was said to b
235 Keesje : The A400M was launched in 2003. Does it mean the 787 was launched in 2006? I guees you aren't talking on the 787 are you? Also based on passive senso
236 Revelation : Then maybe you should lead by example and give us a "factual" explanation about the "financial risks" that SA found unacceptable. All I see is an ugl
237 KC135TopBoom : Of course they do, and EADS wants to open the A-400M line. What's the difference? Ooops, I'm sorry, the C-17 is rolling off the line for its US and I
238 Post contains links Keesje : "The key question is this: why, if the minister knew about the massive risk posed by the Airbus A400M arms deal, was the parliamentary portfolio comm
239 Revelation : What I did say is if there is a financial risk, it is because Airbus was no longer willing to honor the contract that was signed by Airbus and SA in
240 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...5919/ Maybe not, what did EADS tell them and when? Far from reality. The C-17 has actually sol
241 Revelation : Because they don't know. All they know is that Airbus is refusing to honor the contract it signed with them. I think the SA cancellation is one stron
242 Rheinwaldner : I only say such a snobbish reaction would not be acceptable to me for anybody to show towards the 787 at those cases when 787 have been canceled....
243 Keesje : I think it is pretty clear which aircraft manufacturer is under heavy short and longer term pressure on defense and civil projects. Some products need
244 Revelation : Yep, it's clear that Airbus is in the loss position on A340-[56]00, A380 and A400M, has had the KC-330 award yanked, and is playing catch up on the A
245 KC135TopBoom : Correct. EADS Military is in trouble in the international market. They have only sold 18 airplanes outside of the EU, 4 A-400Ms to Malaysia and 14 A-
246 Bennett123 : Did'nt they say much the same about Airbus until Eastern?
247 Post contains links Keesje : Never heard of it frankly. Regarding exports, I do seems light at the end of tunnel because - no viable competition - the A400 seems to have the righ
248 Rwessel : Modern, sure, but hardly biggest. The Kuznetsov NK-12MVs (Tu-95/Bear) are considerable bigger (albeit half a century old).
249 KC135TopBoom : That link is so far out of date it isn't relevent any more. It was 17/18 Jan. 2008. Today is 10 Nov. 2009. That is almost two years old. Did you noti
250 Revelation : You are getting pretty hard to follow. You state earlier that participating in the A400M program was a huge financial risk for SA. And of course it t
251 KC135TopBoom : I think EADS will be hard pressed to keep the orders they have now. Malaysia has an order for 4 A-400Ms, they are the next country I expect to cancel
252 Post contains links Keesje : I can't follow you. 2 (or 4) yrs ago hundeds of medium freighters were getting old. Has that been solved / the market evaporated? Production rate of
253 KC135TopBoom : All those Air Forces with cargo airplanes getting old and less reliable/safe have to do is place an order through the FMS Office and LM, or Boeing wi
254 Keesje : Say a deal is made to compensate a $ 2billion costs overrun. That means ~11 million per sold aircraft. Now what was the originally negotiated price? D
255 Revelation : The slide you quote (#13) says "in service, in storage and on order". About the most favorable interpretation possible, no? How many desert C-130s ar
256 Gipsy : So what then? At least we have built our own A/C, even if it's only a "bigger fatter" C-130, and the US companys won't get OUR money. Mission Accompli
257 Revelation : This is a discussion forum, nothing more, nothing less. Envious of blind patriotism and the careless wastage of taxpayers funds? Not me, we have too
258 Spacepope : That sounds like the kind of language in the "buy American" provision that other countries screamed protectionism about till it was removed. I sincer
259 Par13del : Funny how some on the US side are being critized for attempting to do the same thing, makes you wonder Presume wrong, the US purchases a lot of EU mi
260 Gipsy : It was meant kind of sarcastic but to which conclusion should I come? The general tone in this debate is what a piece of garbage this A/C is - it will
261 Par13del : I think most person's are disappointed in the fact that the a/c is not yet in service, the way the Canadians were rejected on the engine choice, the f
262 XT6Wagon : All this and the fact that some here can only see one answer for any question. They distort, lie, and fabricate when things do not match thier ideal.
263 KC135TopBoom : Well, let me see? The current LOWEST price for the A-400M (they have not published adjusted prices, yet) is 104.3M Euro. If you simple add your 11M E
264 Post contains links Keesje : Wonder if you reacting on revelation or my. I never said anything on Canada.. Anyway a A400M will probably zoom US bases in the near future taking on
265 KC135TopBoom : But you did say, and posted the link that on page 14 talks about selling 400 A-400Ms in North America, which Canada is part of. BTW, I don't think th
266 Keesje : Wow nice solid find TB wait see .. So how many years do you think this will take take them? The current customers are really eager..
267 XT6Wagon : certainly less potent than Airbus's choice when they put down North America for 400. Canada: 0. Men will walk from Ontario to Paris barefoot and nake
268 Post contains links Gipsy : About the prices. Some things I figured out: A400M cost for 180 European AC 20,33 € Billion = 112944444 € per/AC equals 168197236 $ dont know if w
269 KC135TopBoom : I think you may be mixing the domestic fly away prices with the export package prices. Domestic fly away prices, for either the A-400M or the C-17A/E
270 Post contains links Revelation : Gipsy, I think it's hard to say much about prices because Airbus is refusing to honor the contract it signed with the original customers. Various pre
271 Post contains images Keesje : Well it doesn't matter who we think/believe / hope the C-17 and /or A400M prices cost. It's about what they really cost. The markets and beancounters
272 Post contains images Revelation : And they'll be the ones deciding if there will be another 200 A-400Ms sold or not, no? Hmm... I think I've seen this picture before: Ahh, from #1 in
273 Post contains links Keesje : Rev, what do you think will replace the 1500 Hercs, Ill's and An's in the next 15 years. New Herc or a big fleet of 80t C-17s? Even An70s ? The marke
274 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : How about posting a picture of it flying? Ooops, sorry, it cannot do that. At the projected prices, I think the bean counters will order more C-17s,
275 Evomutant : The crazy thing is, I wouldn't be shocked if you actually believed that.
276 KC135TopBoom : Why is the shot only of two of the four engines on it? Whats with the shipping wrapping still on some of the prop blades?
277 Revelation : Answering a question with a question? Guess you really don't want to say who will be ordering the next 200 A-400Ms. And I've already addressed your q
278 Post contains images Keesje : I think you might want to check out with your local TopBoom I'm under the impression you consider everything that you have not seen flying is an unpr
279 Revelation : Pub? So you're bold enough to say 200 more A-400Ms will be ordered, but can't hazard a guess as to who will be doing the ordering? That's like me say
280 Par13del : I think all this debate begs this question, is there a market for an a/c larger than the C130 and smaller than the C-17, at least in cross section? LM
281 Evomutant : I think your tin foil hat fell off... I guess in your mind, not only are Airbus fraudulent enough to photoshop together a fake plane (incredibly well
282 KC135TopBoom : Actually, I believe all airplanes that have not flown are unproven. That includes the A-400M, C-130XL, B-787, B-747-8F/I (although other versions of
283 Revelation : LM is just like Airbus: Why would you put your own money on the line when you can reach into the government coffers? I'm sure they'll venture enough
284 Post contains links Spacepope : New info from Malaysia on prices here: http://www.mmail.com.my/content/1883...-a400m-price-tag-stays-rm600m-each Malaysia paying $177 million, with th
285 Oroka : So, the A400M is pretty much within spitting distance of the C-17 price wise? A C-17 would be a better choice for value, but what is the operational c
286 474218 : I guess you don't know? The C-130J was developed by Lockheed Martin with private funds (no US government money). It was an offshoot of the C-130 HTTB
287 Post contains links Keesje : No? A C-17 costed $172 million, 12 years ago. The acquisition community could hardly endure these headlines and expect a 41st aircraft [by the summer
288 Post contains links Overcast : Seems like progress is being made with the pre first flight tests. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-military-runs-a400m-engines.html Obviously
289 Post contains images Revelation : Hmmm... vs Photoshop or not, you be the judge! And they keep showing that left wing? In any case, I'm definitely looking forward to that bad boy's fi
290 Revelation : This price debate is always silly, but: And Seems pretty similar to me. But we won't really know till Airbus is done having its way with the EU taxpay
291 Post contains links and images Keesje :    I'm starting to get suspicious too.. Should be iddle anyway. The access doors can't stand much more.. That number was defused right after, but a
292 Revelation : Hey, we actually agree on something! There should be an all-out effort to get the first tranche built and flying. That will prove out the basic airfr
293 Revelation : One could say the same about certain other numbers too, no? The ones I provided came from the Financial Times and the BBC. Feel free to post the "def
294 KC135TopBoom : Outstanding, at least one customer is forcing EADS to stick with the current contract. But, I suspect EADS is not worried, they will simply add the l
295 EPA001 : EADS can still build them, but South-Africa is not going to pick up the tab.
296 KC135TopBoom : Apparently, neither is Malaysia.
297 Gipsy : To Revelation and TopBoom: Yes it's difficult to tell the true export price for the A400M as long as no real data is available...if it will ever be. W
298 Post contains images Keesje : Well, they need the capasity and spending north of 300 million US dollars ex spares & training for each Boeing C-17 is an entirely different story (u
299 Revelation : Yes, that is almost certainly the case, but on the other hand, we know nothing about the reliability and maintainability of the A400M engines. Hopefu
300 KC135TopBoom : Most, if not all of those countries, could order the A-400M in the future. I think any potential customer is sitting on their hands right now waiting
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? Part 2 posted Tue Mar 10 2009 16:53:04 by WILCO737
A400M Three Years Late? posted Fri Jan 9 2009 11:59:35 by Scipio
42 Years Ago Today- USS Forrestal posted Wed Jul 29 2009 17:39:11 by DeltaGuy
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