R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 913 posts, RR: 1 Posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
South Africa had 8 aircraft on order, and a small participation of its aerospace industry in the program. In guess they're fed up with all the uncertainty over the future of this aircraft. This is certainly a wake-up call to Airbus...
According to the WSJ article, South Africa does not incur in penalties, and Airbus would have to repay the advances.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 6982 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2161 times:
I can understand them. The A400M is no revolutionary aircraft, so the extreme 787-style delay is inexcusable. I wonder why nowadays, with all the computer-help and hundreds or even thousands if engineers, the oh-so-advanced aircraft industry is not able to deliver in time as their forefathers could with out that help.
Germany wont cancel though. The Luftwaffe has already said the old Transall can serve until the 2020s.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1550 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Quoting Sinlock (Reply 2): I know how you feel NA,
Just think the P-51 went from first order to combat in 17 months.
That the technology is so very different goes without saying. I have to wonder if the big problem is in management. Where are the managers of old who had the courage to make a decision and didn't have to fear whether or not they were being politically correct?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6349 posts, RR: 89 Reply 4, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 1): The A400M is no revolutionary aircraft, so the extreme 787-style delay is inexcusable
Huh? There's nothing about the 787's "revolutionary-ness" that has caused its delays.
I'm not sure that we properly understand what's revolutionary about an aircraft either.
We seem to focus on "a few plastic bits" (revolutionary, eh?) , when I suspect the development and certification of the state-of-the art electronic systems is rapidly growing to be the biggest part of an aircraft development programme.
We seem to ignore that completely..
Flagon From France, joined May 2007, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
Guys,
you have to be a little bit careful: nowadays the bulk of any military aircraft developpement is 90% about systems. The A400M follows the same rule, according to Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS, this aircraft is even more complex, systems-wise, than the Rafale. If I remember right the first delays on this program were due to difficulties in finalising the softwares that deal with the engines.
Besides, having worked an Transall fatigue test bench for several months in 2000, I would be very supprised if we manage to keep this aircraft flying untill 2020 given the poor states of some of the airframes.
Quote: [South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5646 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 1): I can understand them. The A400M is no revolutionary aircraft, so the extreme 787-style delay is inexcusable.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4): Huh? There's nothing about the 787's "revolutionary-ness" that has caused its delays.
I doubt delay was the principal reason. It was probably primarily cost.
The 787 did not end up costing customers more (at least, for the airframe), and in fact, will now cost them less. Furthermore, the fact that the 787 is so revolutionary is why customers are willing to put up with it.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
No matter how you slice it, it's clearly no longer half a C-17 at half the cost.
Can those numbers be correct? They seem way too high. $475M per frame? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the C-17 cost something like $250M per frame? And how could the prices jump so outrageously high, when Airbus was originally marketing it for under $100M??
Something with those numbers just does not seem right.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 16255 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2051 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8): Can those numbers be correct? They seem way too high.
On the surface it does seem to be ludicrously high, but when you factor in options and ancillaries like spares, long-term maintenance contracts, training and such, it could conceivably run that high.
The UAE's C-17 contract with all those goodies pushed $300 million a frame. India's tentative C-17 contract with less ancillaries, on the other hand, is around $100 million less per frame.
UH60FtRucker From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2005, 2886 posts, RR: 68 Reply 11, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The UAE's C-17 contract with all those goodies pushed $300 million a frame.
Ok I am honestly just a curious industry watcher, so excuse my relative ignorance... but you're telling me that a C-17 contract, with all the bells and whistles, comes out to roughly $300M... but a similiar contract for the A400M would be over $500M??? (Using Revelation's calculations).
That's what I am confused about. Those numbers makes the A400M TWICE as expensive as the C-17. I am absolutely astonished if that is truly the case!
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): But indeed the SA government spokesman did cite cost as well as delay as the reasons for the cancellation of their A-400M order.
I understand that. Just using their statement, there appears to have been a 58% cost increase in the contract. But it was the exact figures you gave that shocked me, especially when compared against the $250-300M C-17.
Like I said, I am no expert in this field, so maybe my amazement is needlessly exaggerated.
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2014 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11): Ok I am honestly just a curious industry watcher, so excuse my relative ignorance... but you're telling me that a C-17 contract, with all the bells and whistles, comes out to roughly $300M... but a similiar contract for the A400M would be over $500M??? (Using Revelation's calculations).
Whats been reported here is thats a lifetime price for the A400M. Also likely why there is such a huge varation in the reported numbers as there is alot of room for diferent assumptions on cost increases when spread across 30years.
I think the real story here is that if you bought your A400M without competative bidding and your share isn't very high you are going to get screwed. Which speaks more to the defence industry than EADS itself.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7684 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4): Quoting SA)">NA (Reply 1):
The A400M is no revolutionary aircraft, so the extreme 787-style delay is inexcusable
Huh? There's nothing about the 787's "revolutionary-ness" that has caused its delays.
So you wouldn't say the production and supply strings for the B-787 isn't "revolutionary"?
The main problem with the B-787 is production and management. The main problem with the A-400M is design, management and politics.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12): Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11):
Ok I am honestly just a curious industry watcher, so excuse my relative ignorance... but you're telling me that a C-17 contract, with all the bells and whistles, comes out to roughly $300M... but a similiar contract for the A400M would be over $500M??? (Using Revelation's calculations).
Whats been reported here is thats a lifetime price for the A400M. Also likely why there is such a huge varation in the reported numbers as there is alot of room for diferent assumptions on cost increases when spread across 30years.
The costs for the C-17 is over the lifetime of the airplanes, too. But in the case of the C-17, the life time projections are up to 40 yaers (depending on annual usage), 10 year longer than that of the A-400M (again depending on annual usage).
I find this intersting that EADS was "surprised by the SA order canalation".
"The cancellation "came totally out of the blue," Airbus spokesman Stefan Schaffrath said in a telephone interview. The surprise was all the greater "at a time when the program is making very good progress toward a first flight before the end of the year," he said. "
Now the questions move to will EADS be able to hold onto the Malaysia order for 4, Luxembourg order for 1, Belgium order for 7, Turkey order for 10, United Kingdom order for 25, and Germany order for 60 A-400Ms? I think that Spain's order for 27 and Frances order for 50 A-400Ms are pretty soild.
The current order book for the A-400M is now at 184 airplanes (and dropping?), because of the 8 SAAF order cancel (not counting the 6 options that were also cancelled).
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 4127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): The costs for the C-17 is over the lifetime of the airplanes, too. But in the case of the C-17, the life time projections are up to 40 years (depending on annual usage), 10 year longer than that of the A-400M (again depending on annual usage).
Interesting.
It'll be interesting to see how the lifetime costs for the A-400M "frankenengines" works out compared to C-17 engines which are based on the Pratt PW2040s.
It'll be interesting to see how the lifetime costs for the A-400M "frankenengines" works out compared to C-17 engines which are based on the Pratt PW2040s.
Good point. The C-17 PW-2040s are the same engines as the P&W powered B-757 has.
Speedbird128 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 804 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1797 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): But indeed the SA government spokesman did cite cost as well as delay as the reasons for the cancellation of their A-400M order.
or, more likely, the sa government has embezzled or just plainly stolen the money allocated to it...
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7684 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1796 times:
Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 16): Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
But indeed the SA government spokesman did cite cost as well as delay as the reasons for the cancellation of their A-400M order.
or, more likely, the sa government has embezzled or just plainly stolen the money allocated to it...
If that is close to being true, you and your country have bigger problems than worrying about the next new transport airplane for the SAAF.
Speedbird128 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 804 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1795 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): If that is close to being true, you and your country have bigger problems than worrying about the next new transport airplane for the SAAF.
pilfering, and misappropriation, is a way of life here... but seriously though, i doubt there ever was full funding for those planes...
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6349 posts, RR: 89 Reply 19, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
Quoting Flagon (Reply 5): Guys,
you have to be a little bit careful: nowadays the bulk of any military aircraft developpement is 90% about systems
I have to say I agree with that.
For what it's worth, I think Civil aircraft are going the same way.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 7): Furthermore, the fact that the 787 is so revolutionary is why customers are willing to put up with it.
The customers wouldn't care if it was made out of cast iron, so long as it was cheaper to operate over its life cycle than another similar sized aircraft
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): So you wouldn't say the production and supply strings for the B-787 isn't "revolutionary"?
No. it isn't. Nowhere near.
Doesn't mean it's easy, of course.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7684 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 18): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
If that is close to being true, you and your country have bigger problems than worrying about the next new transport airplane for the SAAF.
pilfering, and misappropriation, is a way of life here... but seriously though, i doubt there ever was full funding for those planes...
Can the public do anything about it? If you can, why don't you? If not, all is lost.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19): Quoting Flagon (Reply 5):
Guys,
you have to be a little bit careful: nowadays the bulk of any military aircraft developpement is 90% about systems
I have to say I agree with that.
For what it's worth, I think Civil aircraft are going the same way.
I would say it is 100% systems developement. The airframe/fuselage/aerodynamics itself is a system on the aircraft, just like electrical, hydraulic, avionics, engines, various softwear, etc. The difficult part is intergrating all of these various sytems into an airplane that works.
That is the problem both the A-400M and B-787 share.
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5646 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): That is the problem both the A-400M and B-787 share.
One thing to keep in mind is that much of the hold-up with the A400M has been the engine. Recall that this engine was a political decision, which overrode what had been the front-runner (UTC.) The UTC engine was a safer bet, but was North American, and therefore simply wouldn't do. That decision may cost the project dearly, as it turns out.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7684 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1232 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 21): One thing to keep in mind is that much of the hold-up with the A400M has been the engine. Recall that this engine was a political decision, which overrode what had been the front-runner (UTC.) The UTC engine was a safer bet, but was North American, and therefore simply wouldn't do. That decision may cost the project dearly, as it turns out.
That is true. However the UTC engine is Canadian (even though Canada is part of North America). The EU folks wanted a true European engine. Canada is more European than the US ever will be. Had the EU politicians let the Canadian engine fly on the A-400M, the airplane would be flying today, and very possibly have entered service by now. Canada would have ordered the A-400M instead of the C-17 and C-130J, the UK would not have needed C-17s or C-130Js, either. So, the A-400M would have surely sold more airplanes, at least to Canada, and possibly Austraila, too. The C-17 line may even have been shut down by now.
Who knows what would have been had the politicians kept their noses out of somewhere it shouldn't have been.
Olle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 187 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1172 times:
I know that the reason why Eurofighter has a European engine is because they did not want US to influence export. SAAB Gripen has for example that problem. Is this the same reason in this case?
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1160 times:
Quoting Olle (Reply 23): I know that the reason why Eurofighter has a European engine is because they did not want US to influence export. SAAB Gripen has for example that problem. Is this the same reason in this case?
Nope, in one of the most blatent of protectionist meddling by governments they threw out the win by the canadian engine and awarded it to a company that didn't even exist outside of paper. We are seeing just how bad things go when you throw together a bunch of companies based on where they are located and what you think you might need... on a political whim.
Evomutant From Canada, joined May 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1123 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 24): Quoting Olle (Reply 23):
I know that the reason why Eurofighter has a European engine is because they did not want US to influence export. SAAB Gripen has for example that problem. Is this the same reason in this case?
Nope, in one of the most blatent of protectionist meddling by governments they threw out the win by the canadian engine and awarded it to a company that didn't even exist outside of paper. We are seeing just how bad things go when you throw together a bunch of companies based on where they are located and what you think you might need... on a political whim.
That is all true. But let's not pretend it is an exclusively European Phenomenon shall we?
And Europrop was indeed an artificial construct. But it's not like the partners were some scrubs they rounded up off the street is it? Rolls-Royce, Snecma, MTU and ITP all know a thing or two about aircraft engines.
26 Gipsy: "I would say it is 100% systems developement. The airframe/fuselage/aerodynamics itself is a system on the aircraft, just like electrical, hydraulic,
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 913 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2000, 1475 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6349 posts, 
From France, joined May 2007, 23 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2005, 2886 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 804 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 187 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 179 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
