Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
The previous A400M thread hit 300 & a news phase has started now the A400M has been handed over to the flight test department so I guess shutting down the old one & starting a fresh one is ok.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
KC135TopBoom:
In the last thread you said this:
Quote:
Outstanding, at least one customer is forcing EADS to stick with the current contract. But, I suspect EADS is not worried, they will simply add the lost $13M per airplane to the RMAF to the European customers. I'm sure the EU taxpayers just love to subsidise the military forces of Malaysia.
IMO it is correct that foreign buyers get the aicrafts for contracted price.
I expect those countries who funded the project (and who have the the political benefit) to cope for the development cost.
It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!
The same principle applies to nearly any exported military aircraft.
A small hint: the KC-330 would be THAT opportunity for the US to benefit directly from EU tax money! The more the A-330 would be subsidized, the more benefit! Be smart!
Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1): Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!
Uh....Because those subsidies would go to a foreign company instead of a domestic one? (Yeah, I know Northrop ain't foreign)
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1): Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!
Bit simplistic, but it can be looked at in that way, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.
As for the A400M, I do believe that there is a market for an a/c below the C-17 and above the C-130 at least in cabin width, the question will be whether LM plays the ostrich and does not respond until the A400M has captured the entire market. If they do, expect the same furor that now exits with the KC30 to raise up when the US Air Force decides to have a competition to replace the C-130 and someone teams up with EADS to offer the A400M.
Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1): IMO it is correct that foreign buyers get the aicrafts for contracted price.
I expect those countries who funded the project (and who have the the political benefit) to cope for the development cost.
It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!
The same principle applies to nearly any exported military aircraft.
That is very simplistic, and false. Usually countries outside of the developement funding buy these airplanes with more than just the airplane alone. there is usually a package that includes support of maintenance, spares, training, etc. That is exactly the case with Malayisa. They are paying $177M (US) for an airplane that at the time the contract was signed had a list price of $103M (US).
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1): A small hint: the KC-330 would be THAT opportunity for the US to benefit directly from EU tax money! The more the A-330 would be subsidized, the more benefit! Be smart!
Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!
Again your assumptions are wrong. First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program. Second, the US will pay developement costs for the A-330MRTT, or KC-767. You may recall the 2008 program, and this 2009 program call for 4 SDD airplanes, to be paid for by the US Government to develope the tanker the USAF wants and needs. You are correct, EADS paid for the initial developement, but Boeing also paid for the initial developement of the KC-767, a program that began in the early 1990s. That program was one reason why the USAF selected the KC-767 lease deal back in 2002. Boeing already had a tanker program in developement. Airbus was asked to submit a tanker in 2002, but then, they did not have a program. They started the A-330MRTT program because of that lease RFP.
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2): Uh....Because those subsidies would go to a foreign company instead of a domestic one? (Yeah, I know Northrop ain't foreign)
Correct.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 3): Bit simplistic, but it can be looked at in that way, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.
The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either. It does something different than the A-400M does, as the A-400M does something different from the C-17.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 3): Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.
American hero Buzz Aldrin played a crusial role. When he showed the potential of these early Airbusses the ice was broken and hundreds ordered. maybe there an Aldrin statue somewhere in Toulouse..
Quoting Par13del (Reply 3): Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.
Even better the expected?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.
So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either. It does something different than the A-400M does, as the A-400M does something different from the C-17.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1): It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!
US FMS sales frequently have charges to help repay the development of that particular system, these can be a major source of contention for foreign customers as it can add substantially to the cost.The earlier customers tend to get hit with these first and later ones don't get screwed by the Pentagon - as much anyway. One recent example has been the delay in Taiwan's Pac3 Patriot deal signing for the actual missiles, they are hoping the UAE contract gets finalized first and the UAE end up paying more of these surcharges.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.
So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...
In the 2002 lease deal, the USAF invited Airbus to the compitition. They did not compete because at the time, they did not have a tanker. The A-310MRTT came about slightly later,but with used aircraft, not new builds and the A-330MRTT came about much later, in 2004, IIRC. It was formerly launched in 2005 with the RAAF order.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): In the 2002 lease deal, the USAF invited Airbus to the compitition. They did not compete because at the time, they did not have a tanker.
Hmm, I think that is a slightly incomplete respresentation of tanker history..
The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100
aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.
In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.
The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.
A big scandal followed, people went to jail, Boeing's CEO/CFO were fired & and a settlement with DoJ of $640 mln was done. Druyin took all the blame to keep high placed people like Wolfowitz, Albaugh and Condit out of the line of fire.
Back to the A400M, I think the pressure on Airbus Militairy to deliver substantial numbers of transports means little slots will become available for more customers until 2016 earliest.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.
Caution! If you argue like that I could say that the C-17 is not superior to the A-400 too. At least there were RFP's that were met by both (and consequently the A-400 was chosen).
IMO superiority is based on absolute measures and not by the scope of RFP's. Only then the C-17 is superior to the A-400 in many cases.
N328KF From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 11): IMO superiority is based on absolute measures and not by the scope of RFP's. Only then the C-17 is superior to the A-400 in many cases.
No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4181 posts, RR: 30 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5): American hero Buzz Aldrin played a crusial role. When he showed the potential of these early Airbusses the ice was broken and hundreds ordered. maybe there an Aldrin statue somewhere in Toulouse..
That was Frank Borman, not Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Frank Borman, Apollo 8 commander, became CEO of the now defunct Eastern Airlines and ordered the A300 at the very moment Airbus' sponsor governments were considering pulling the plug on the consortium due to a lack of sales. So it is Frank Borman that should have a statue prominently displayed in Toulouse (and barring that, you should put a framed picture of him somewhere in your living room and pay homage to him every morning before you leave for work. ).
Most of all, there is no competition (if you ignore Antonov).
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13): That was Frank Borman, not Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Frank Borman,
You are right! Borman :
..and Frank Kolk of AA.
The A300 proved a cost / realibility killer against the Lockheed Tristar. Speaking about Lockheed (Martin) it seems the are very vague now about the Fat Herc. They think there is little market potential.
Not sure if he is saying there's no market so they are not working on it, or, we have nothing to offer so really, there can't be demand yet..
Grant played down suggestions that the company was working on a bigger version of the airlifter to carry the increasingly heavily armoured vehicles now being designed for land forces to counter the threat of road side bombs and other munitions.
The executive said the company had looked at options to understand what was technically feasible should customers desire a larger aircraft.
There is no specific request from a customer and no design work underway he said.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4181 posts, RR: 30 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): Speaking about Lockheed (Martin) it seems the are very vague now about the Fat Herc. They think there is little market potential.
Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14): Studies have shown that the C-130J was capable of conducting between 95 and 97 percent of all the requests for movements in theatre, said Grant.
Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14): Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.
Then they should see oppotunities I guess. Maybe the think even a fat C130 ain't good enough.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14): Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.
The C130J is a very good transport for up to 20t smaller dimensioned loads on shorter routes where using airways isn't neccesary.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.
Then they should see oppotunities I guess. Maybe the think even a fat C130 ain't good enough.
Or maybe they don't see a market much beyond about 200 airplanes in this class, of which EADS already has 184 orders. Maybe LM is beginning to look at an A-400M replacement.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.
The C130J is a very good transport for up to 20t smaller dimensioned loads on shorter routes where using airways isn't neccesary.
Usually, the USAF doesn't fly airways.
Quoting Emirates2005 (Reply 16): As per this website (only in Slovak) and quoting the German Focus magazine, the A400M is expected to take off on 30th November.
That would be nice if it happens, but where did Focus get that information? I didn't expect any updates before the customer and EADS meeting tomorrow and Friday in Berlin.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 11): No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.
Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they? So how do you compare two airplanes built to meet entirely different specifications? That's like comparing the F-4 Phantom II to the MiG-21; two entirely different animals!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18): Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.
Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they? So how do you compare two airplanes built to meet entirely different specifications? That's like comparing the F-4 Phantom II to the MiG-21; two entirely different animals!
Well, the F-4 bested the Mig-21 more often than the other way around. But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today. It is a much more capable airlifter.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19): But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today.
When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 20): When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 21): Never and nether has the A-400M.
That is what it is designed to do.
The comment was in reply to "the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today"
This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
N328KF From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 22): This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.
Listen, the A400M may be built as intended, in the numbers originally intended, and it may be a functional success, but it will never be the bargain it promised to be. There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 23): There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).
I think I have a pretty good picture of C130, C-17 and A400M prices and capabilities and think are many thing the A400M will do better and cheaper then transports currently available. I find most of the negative press and opinions on it remarkable and unsubstantiated.
Recent programs like the A330F, A380 and A320/A330 enhancements give me confidence this will be an excellent aircraft too & the market looks bright.
25 KC135TopBoom: No Keesje, you don't have a clue about the pricing of the C-17, C-130J or A-400M. You have been all over the map on your numbers, none of which you e
26 474218: This is what several frequent posters to this forum can't seem to understand. The C-130, the C-17 and the A400M all have different missions. If you t
27 EPA001: Not true. To break even is not the same as making a profit. Airbus took the massive write-off of program development costs which means that basically
28 Overcast: Looks like progress to FF is ramping up http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html obviously this is most opurtune with
29 Astuteman: Surely even you can't believe that? Great sentence....... Great piece of photoshopping by FI...... I presume will be the stock response.. Rgds
30 Keesje: The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armore
31 Rheinwaldner: Please note: since some years and up until eternity any sold 737 did or will only happen in case of: a. supplementary orders b. or if the huge A320 b
32 Jalap: What a relief to see actual progress being made! Would love to see all 4 engines run on video and hear their sound! I suppose taxi tests are imminent
33 Keesje: If you include old Russia not, but I think the engines are by far the most powerfull props ever developped in the west. P.S. apparently a spotter sne
34 Overcast: " target=_blank>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...4.jpg Keesje, That photo is a mirror image, so watch out for the Photoshop boys!
35 Revelation: I was reading that the Puma weighs 31.5 tons in basic form, and 43 tons in current form (due to extra armor). We know A400M is having problems hittin
36 Keesje: All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying t
37 KC135TopBoom: Eeeeh, yes, break even is the point just before a profit is made. The profit begins at the break even point airplane 1. The A-380 program costs some
38 Revelation: Why do you think financial and operational/technical problems are not related? What good is an airplane that won't be built because it's blown its bu
39 EA772LR: Would that be the An-74?? Why hasn't this plane caught on more? Production, parts, mx, etc.?? All of the usual issues that Russian planes don't sell
40 Revelation: Interestingly enough, the original contract that Airbus was granted had 5B EUR for the initial batch of 180 A400Ms and Airbus has already taken EUR 2
41 Keesje: I guess there is little need for transporting MBT by air. Dozens go on a boot and there are trucks. It's an extreme niche. BTW great article again fr
42 CheetahC: That would be the An-70, from the Ukraine.
43 Revelation: Oh, yes, let's focus on the technical problems. Hmm, no mention of how I showed that the "someone somewhere" substantiating the technical problems wa
44 KC135TopBoom: I am, and so is Revelation. Of course you only have to sit there and ignor the facts. " target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...fense I
45 F27Friendship: The Netherlands are not taking part in the A400M. They recently acquired several refurbished C-130s and took a stake in the newly acquired 3 C-17's wh
46 Par13del: Out of curiosity, why refurbished? C-130's are used extensively by all users and new one are easily availabe at higher cost, but based on the life of
47 KC135TopBoom: My mistake, I should have written Belgium, who, IIRC has 7 or 8 A-400Ms on order.
48 Keesje: Do you recall what engine? I thought nothing close to the requirements exist(ed). How could it have been any better. OMG are you sure?
49 Par13del: My google searches say its the PW180, as for the specifications, these are on paper and once the political decision was made to use a local product,
50 Evomutant: The PW180. A clean sheet design, based on some older bits. Certainly not a ready to go engine. This old chestnut has the details: A400 Engine Selectio
51 Par13del: I remember the thread and some of the points raised have proven to be true. Political pressure was used to determine engine selection, a new company h
52 ThePointblank: Actually, PWC did NOT have a engine ready to go. I've forgotten what engine core they were proposing, but what I do remember is that the engine core
53 Astuteman: That doesn't gel with this from the senate report, does it? EADS have currently written down 50% of the revenue they have taken so far on the program
54 F27Friendship: I think it all about budgets. Buying new chinooks and the upcoming fighter replacement, acquisition of the NH-90 etc. will make budget planning very
55 KC135TopBoom: It was two engines PWC proposed, the PW180 and the PW800 Yes, read between the lines. Neither did EuroProp. They were bearly formed up as a company.
56 Astuteman: Just run this "inexperience" by me again........... Rgds
57 Par13del: Does this mean that the new company is simply an administrative company created to get the contract, or are they going to have their own engineers, d
58 Revelation: Good point. Since 5B/180 is 27M clearly the 5B is just the initial payment. I have read a quote from Enders saying they already know they won't make
59 KC135TopBoom: Well, with all the experience each individual company had, you would think their very first product as a joint venture would hav only had the normal
60 Revelation: Ok. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4078604
61 Keesje: Nah, it's a german called Enders.. I wonder if any here suspect there are multi billion dollar negotiations going on with several governments, indust
62 474218: It is, I thought it was a A-400M built for the British market?
63 Astuteman: I would have thought the experiences Boeing have had with the 787 (and Airbus with the A380) would have taught that experience alone doesn't guarante
64 Revelation: So are you trying to say that you're disappointed in choice of the EPI team?
65 Zeke: You will find this to do with the DO-178B /ED-12B (software) and DO254/ED80 (hardware) standards that EADS is using for the whole A400M project, as f
66 Revelation: As a software professional I know traceability is crucial, and so do you, but apparently EPI didn't. It's hard for me to believe it. In essense he's
67 Zeke: I do not think that is a fair comment. The new standards are stricter than anything people have worked with before. EPI did not know it had a problem
68 Astuteman: No, I wasn't. I was saying that the fact that they screwed something up shouldn't be used as a measure of whether they're experienced or not. Even th
69 Keesje: The last link is nothing more then opinion from Andrea Rothman who has a consistent track record on Airbus reporting. David Learmont (ex Herc driver)
70 Rheinwaldner: As far as I know (being software professional too) the DO-178B standard requires traceability in a way unknow to normal software development. Basical
71 Revelation: With regard to timing, the president of EPI is disagreeing with your rendering: The way I read this, he's saying that part of the company knew they h
72 KC135TopBoom: I'm sure you are correct, the public is not seeing what is going on behind closed doors. Any negotiations would involved billions of dollars/Euros. I
73 Evomutant: They made a mistake. It happens to even the most experienced in anything ocassionally. Are you seriously arguing that the constituent parties in Euro
74 F27Friendship: I will personally attest that the French are rookies in good service when it comes to insurance and internet... But then they share an antique banking
75 Keesje: Detail (not really relevant) the M88 based TP400-D1 and Pratt & Whitney offering were both wiped of the whiteboard. The Europrop International TP400-
76 KC135TopBoom: Joint ventures. Each of the four companies are successful in their own rights. As far as I know, the only one of the four who has experience on a big
77 Keesje: Topboom I thought you would have checked this before posting. I guess not. MTU would probably have had a share in the PW180 (and many other PW engine
78 ThePointblank: I would point out how badly Lockheed Martin 'blundered' with the C-130J; it was a simple avionics and engine upgrade of a well understood aircraft; i
79 Zeke: When exactly do you think RTCA DO-178B and DO-178C were published ? RTCA DO-178 is not a standard as such, it is about 100 pages of guildelines witho
80 Rheinwaldner: May I ask whether you develop airborne software? Otherwise I assume you have no clear picture about software development for airborne systems. "Exact
81 Revelation: Yes, there are blunders all around to choose from, no one questions that. The real question then is how could EPI have come up with a budget (in term
82 KC135TopBoom: You are correct, but none of that is a joint venture. MTU would have been a subcontractor for their parts of the PW-180, as is ITP for the GEnx and R
83 F27Friendship: 3 of those 4 companies also developed the EJ200 enginers for the Eurofighter together with Italian Avio). Two of them were involved in the engine dev
84 Keesje: Aero Propulsion Alliance was a European aeroengine consortium set up to develop the TP400-D1 turboprop for the A400M military transport, using a modi
85 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html It is good to see her progressing. Is there a youtube vedio, yet? " target=_blank>http:/
86 Keesje: " target=_blank>http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...XwMyQ It's not Europrop, it's Teal. Probably Richard Aboulafia, reading the Program overview b
87 Lumberton: I see where the thread on the plane being late (Part 4) has been closed. Since I don't want to start a Part 5--we know the plane is going to be late--
88 Keesje: Another dramatic cost explosion lifting prices north of $300 would be neccessary for that to happen.. It sure took a lot of determination to get the
89 Flagon: I've received this news summary, maybe that was already mentioned somewhere? A400M: EADS disposed to punish South Africa As expected, relations betwee
90 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y.htm Wow, Keesje, for only $300 each for a brand new C-17, I'll order several myself, then le
91 Astuteman: I've no idea what relevance a 1995 price for a C17 has to the 2006 price for an A400M. What am I missing? Rgds
92 Overcast: Nothing, It's just that most of this thread and the preceding ones are filled with petty NIH comment. I can't be bother to get in a pissing match abo
93 KC135TopBoom: No sir, you are not missing anything. I was just trying to show Keesje his domestic prices for the C-17 have never been close to reality. His prices
94 Keesje: If the A400M is to compete with the A400M (which it doesn't IMO) we are talking export price. I have summed up many orders many times and they point
95 Nomadd22: More like 315 million in 2010. That chart is garbage. Both the past numbers and future projections have no basis in reality. Kind of like most of som
96 Keesje: there is a video library with taxiing, high power engine testing http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx The enegines seems to be doing
97 KC135TopBoom: I agree the C-17 and A-400M are different classes of airplanes. A few differences, the FF of the C-17 took place 23 months after originally scheduled
98 A342: The A400M might take to the skies in only two weeks: "The goal would see the European airlifter's debut sortie take place from the A400M final assembl
99 Revelation: That would be great. The warm afterglow of a successful first sortie will hopefully help the contract negotiations along.
100 KC135TopBoom: It would be nice if it happens. My hope and prayers are EADS is not rushing through the testing periods without enough time to review testing results
101 Astuteman: And you don't see it as the same thing? What happened to "The A380 is nothing except scaled up"? Got news for you. At the end of the day, the tings w
102 Cargotanker: Interesting article in DefenseNews about UK purchasing another C-17: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4394666&c=AME&s=TOP Looks like they want t
103 Revelation: Why? Boeing isn't refusing to honor the contracts it's signed, is it?
104 Revelation: " target=_blank>http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...s=TOP The lead paragraph was interesting: Those who keep saying C-17 is not used in Afghanista
105 KC135TopBoom: Do you want me to say the A-380 is nothing more than an A-330-200 put atop an A-340-500? Both the B-787 and A-350 programs are very different from "t
106 CheetahC: C-130Js are very possible, almost no chance for the C-17 though.
107 KC135TopBoom: Thank you. I asked about the C-17 because there would be a good possibility of bumping into a few USAF production slots to get a few C-17s early (wit
108 Astuteman: They have a slightly different fuselage skin construction and that's it. The other 95% is pretty much exactly what we've seen before..... The hype ar
109 Revelation: And IMHO your insistence that 95% is "pretty much exactly what we've seen before" is contrarian nonsense, but let's not stray too away from the A400M
110 Astuteman: It's no more contrarian nonsense than when it is applied to many other aircraft, INCLUDING the A400M. So you're right to suggest you don't go there..
111 EPA001: Well said. But it also very sad that both the KC-X thread and the A400 thread are so full sh*t by this "gang". I have a strong feeling that if no Eur
112 Zeke: I thought penalty payments were normally only due after a project becomes late. No question that the A400M will be late when they are delivered, but
113 Revelation: And when you do, you should start a thread about it. Here we (were) discussing how the A400M's first flight might help the currently ongoing contract
114 Par13del: Does compettion mean EU jobs in the US purchasing US equipment, or vice versa, or EU jobs in the EU and their products shipped to the US, or EU loss
115 KC135TopBoom: Some how, I view carbon fiber material much more than "slightly different" than Aluminum. Is the other 95% the same? What other airplane is purely el
116 A342: Every single piston airliner is! Simple as that. The technology is VERY old. A342
117 KC135TopBoom: Is it? You are sure about it being "VERY old technology"? Name a commerical jet airliner that is not using bleed air for pressurization, engine start
118 EPA001: And they are like that by choice. Airbus has been very clear about that.
119 A342: Yes, absolutely. Sure we can, why not? Huh? Now what else should there be? Why do you lump bleed air and electric compressors together? The 787 DOES
120 Keesje: the 787 aint bleedless either & the jury is still out on bleedless, let's wait how operations go.. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...rticles/qtr
121 Slz396: The BAe146 (or Avro RJ70/85/100 as it is called in later versions) uses solely an electrical starter motor to starts its 4 high bypass jet engines...
122 R2rho: Hmmm I came in here looking for a thread about A400M First Flight & Future Prospects, but I guess I was wrong.....
123 KC135TopBoom: I agree, we need to get back on topic or the mods will lock it. Any word on whae the A-400M will complete its ground pressuization testing? As I unde
124 Scbriml: Not completely. First flight is set for week of 7th December! Who'd a thunk it? http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSGEE5AQ1LI20091127
125 Lumberton: Les Echos is reporting that the A400M will cost the airbus countries (and the others) that ordered this thing "40% more". Let's hear again from the "t
126 Slz396: The C-17 would still be too expensive: - in purchase - in operation On top of that it would also not generate any return on government investment for
127 Lumberton: Don't think so. Remember this? This is the last data point I have on the C-17 pricing. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0on%20C-17%20Sales&chan
128 Keesje: From SeattlePI. According to the Selected Acquisition Reports published by the US Department of Defense, the cost per C-17 airframe is 280 million and
129 R2rho: " target=_blank>http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDE...91127 Thanks My personal bet is on december 10th. Why? Because it is the feast of the Virgin o
130 KC135TopBoom: Oh really? The C-17 is far cheaper in price now. How many A-400Ms are in operation? None, so how do you know it is cheaper to operate? You seem to fo
131 Revelation: You aren't even close: And I give two excellent linked sources (BBC, FT) quoting government representatives instead of some unlinked reference to som
132 KC135TopBoom: Had the USAF been a customer of the A-400M, the Nunn-Lugar Act would have kicked in by now and forced the US to cancel and withdraw from the program.
133 Keesje: Of course there is a link. But I won't post it anymore. There is absolutely nothing that change your mind on the C-17 numbers you stick to, despite a
134 Revelation: And so what ever little credibility you have on these price issues has just disappeared. You keep giving quotes from SA sources about the low cost of
135 Slz396: Sure, there's no A400M operating yet, but take an educated guess as to which one is cheeper to operate... a turboprop, or a jet with about double the
136 Keesje: ? me ? ? I even said it was a logical decision. ? me ? Do you even check when you accuse people ? If europe wants to buy equal capasity of large carg
137 Revelation: Yes, you, right here, less than five hours ago: You do recall doing this, don't you?
138 Revelation: Right now the A400M doesn't do all those things and it's not clear that there's a fundable plan that would get it to do all those things. We now hear
139 KC135TopBoom: So you don't have a link. You are still in denial, my friend. The C-17 prices are what they are, and no matter how much wishfull thinking you do will
140 Revelation: If you need two ATRs to haul all your stuff, or if you need to make extra fuel stops to get to where you are going, the ATR is not going to be effect
141 Lumberton: Keesje, don't pass on this heaven sent opportunity; post the link and dispel the doubts. BTW, are you following this? There was a Reuters story (quot
142 Revelation: I'm not all that surprised: I am not saying the program is unravelling, but I really do have to wonder how far the whole program is from unravelling.
143 Lumberton: I don't think it will ever "unravel" in the sense that the airbus nations will dump it. I have opined previously (several times, in fact) that the ne
144 Keesje: Why should I ? As I stated it's useless. No source stating what you folks don't want to hear will ever get accepted. Welll ok then here we go again,
145 Lumberton: Thank you for posting the link. The report is from 2007; the link I provided to the AW&ST story is 2009. There is a foot note under the table on page
146 Keesje: No the program cost went up during the last few yrs. Check out the SAR Program Acquisition Cost Summary's of recent yrs. The GAO now expects the C-17
147 Lumberton: Keesje, if I wanted to play that game I could have taken the data I posted earlier and escalated the unit cost by 40%. That would be USD$305 million p
148 Rheinwaldner: And I think the C-17 costs more than the space shuttle! I can think what I want!
149 Keesje: No, Lumberton I have no sources at all, specially not in this thread. Yes, Lumberton that is very likely, they are just sooo close in price.
150 Slz396: You mean like the USAF has been forced to do on the RFP for the tanker renewal?
151 Slz396: Just like the A330 is unarguably the finest plane in its class too, yet the USAF MUST pick the 767 frame as basis of their future tanker fleet. Inter
152 Revelation: At least the EU nations openly speak of "industrial policy" factoring into their decision making. And as Lumberton has pointed out above, EADS is usi
153 Spacepope: Oh yeah, well I think it costs more than Belgium! No links to prove it though. Well, hundreds of millions of dollars and small European countries are
154 Revelation: Read on, yet again.... The longer you stay in denial, the more absurd you look.
155 Keesje: Read it yourself its about 210 airframes. Still $ 350.000.000 aquisition costs. We know what recent customers have paid, Canada, Emirates, Qatar, Aus
156 Revelation: Has nothing to do with what one pays today for a C-17. As pointed out repeatedly, those numbers in #94 include things like I think others must be in
157 Bennett123: Spacepope Does your view of small European countries as an "abstract concept" extend to the Vatican State
158 Spacepope: Watch it, or I'll sick San Marino after you, they might bring Lichtenstein and Andorra along for the getaway ride.
159 Francoflier: Ze freche niouz: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...a400ms-debut-flight-test-plan.html Airbus Military has revealed its long-term flight-test prog
160 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c.pdf What is funny is the link he provided does not mention one word about the C-17. It is al
161 A380900: What is Airbus military gaining with this program?Arguably, there is an entry cost to everything and the cost of this airplane must be seen in a bigge
162 Rheinwaldner: Good questions! May be a smaller twin with the same engine. Either as civil airliner or military cargo plane. Kessje proposed it some time ago. And d
163 CMB56: Well turbo props for short haul passenger operations have gained back some of their popularity because of fuel costs. Fuel is down right now but that
164 Keesje: The TP400-D6 are very modern engines. An Earlier design TP400-D1 with the M88 core was not accpeted & a total redign started (D6). Its offers double t
165 A380900: Ok. I got my facts wrong then. Maybe they should build an airplane with these engines then. Given the propellers, it would have to be high wing. An A
166 GRIVely: Keesje, Thank you for the link to the article. I read it with interest. Most of the issues pointed out seem to be relatively minor but as an old Army
167 KC135TopBoom: I don't know if there is a market for a 4 turboprop engine cargo airplane. Lockheed did have the L-100 and a -30 version, the civilian version of the
168 Keesje: Video of medium speed taxi test http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx For the heating issue I can imagine, deflection (other outlets),
169 KC135TopBoom: I also agree that EADS engineers are most likely working to resolve these overheating issues. But will their solutions add additional weight to the a
170 Francoflier: Who knows. Maybe they should go for a C-130 competitor/replacement powered by a pair of TP-400. I mean, as perennial as the thing seems to be, the He
171 NorCal: Boeing has been very busy this last decade with new designs and upgrades. Let's assume for a moment you are right and Boeing has been playing "sleepi
172 474218: I am completely confused, dozens of replies in this forum have stated that the A-400M was the replacement for the C-130 (and the C-17). Now you are s
173 Evomutant: Double post Filler filler filler[Edited 2009-12-05 09:37:19 by evomutant]
174 Evomutant: In short, and ignoring the continuing teeth-pulling of the argument about cost, the A400M is a more capable aircraft than a C-130, and not as capable
175 A380900: A400M: new stuff. A380: Trouble with cabling but the airplane was sound. I consider that the 787 is in its own category in terms of screw-up. People
176 Francoflier: As stated, the A400 simply is bigger than the C-130. In the future, many a C-130 operating Air Force will probably want to replace theirs with someth
177 KC135TopBoom: None of that is true, The Boeing engineers did not get some 14 years "off" In the time between the B-777 and B-7E7 (which became the B-787), Boeing e
178 Par13del: I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume that these engineers while not designing a/c and sitting around twiddling their thumbs being pai
179 NorCal: Incorrect, Boeing engineers have not been sitting around doing nothing since the 777 was designed. Boeing and Airbus are both constantly designing ne
180 Francoflier: It's true. But in a way, the reason a new aircraft (or anything else) is designed is to fulfill the needs of customers which no other aircraft (or an
181 KC135TopBoom: Well, let's not get to carried away here. We don't really know if the A-400M will fill its list of specs., yet. It is designed to fill these specs. b
182 Art: I thought it was drastically overweight. Isn't performance bound to fall a long way short of expectations?
183 A380900: Nothing compares with really building an aircraft. I'm not talkin about some guy playing around with CATIA. I'm talking about the entire process of t
184 KC135TopBoom: That is not practical, for Boeing or Airbus. Neither can afford to build a prototype from every design proposal. Today is 7 December (Pearl Harbor da
185 SpeedyGonzales: The weather in Sevilla looks good on storm.no: http://www.storm.no/vaer/14672873 I don't know where they get their forecasts for Spain though.
186 KC135TopBoom: Thanks, looks like they will have VFR weather Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. After that the winds may be to high for the A-400M first flight. Today,
187 JBirdAV8r: Well, it's news to me that the people who built the first 777 just up and left and don't actively build new aircraft today. Do you think all they do
188 KC135TopBoom: Don't forget that since the first model of the B-777 was built (B-777-200A) some 14 years ago, there have been 5 additional models of the B-777 (B-777
189 Flyglobal: According to German newspaper the first A400 flight is now officially scheduled for Friday Dec. 11 around 10:00h or 11:00h European time. Regards Flyg
190 Overcast: FF must be getting close see the Rejected Take Off below, although in the video there seem to be some strange noises when the RTO is initiated, is tha
191 KC135TopBoom: What are the three stripes they have on each side of the tail? On both sides, they break up the "A-400M" logo. Are they newly installed flat antennas?
193 XT6Wagon: According to Airbus and other sources *all* A400 for the forseeable future will be overwieght. However Airbus says it will meet the payload requireme
194 Zeke: According to EADS all airframes will meet contractual performance specification, including the initial ones. The A380 was less than 2% overweight wit
195 XT6Wagon: Rubbish, DOD figures have shown that the C17 prices are increasing to around the same price they have been for decades. yes, lets pull figures out of
196 KC135TopBoom: Good point, then they are probably strain gauges. Thanks, that makes sense. I see we are back to the C-17 pricing, again. The flyaway price per C-17A
197 Rheinwaldner: First flight will be this Friday! http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...400m-first-flight-this-friday.html
198 Gipsy: Nice looking forward to FF on Friday! To the never ending pricing discussion I think it's not valid to compare the C17 price now to the current A400M
199 KC135TopBoom: No, the C-17 flyawy price was readjusted to $172M per aircraft in 1995. To date, the total spent on the C-17 program, including the developement cost
200 Overcast: " target=_blank>http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y.htm So you're now saying that over the entire program each C-17 has $136-150M each, is that
201 Zeke: According to page 21 of the the report "Strategic Airlift Modernization: Analysis of C-5 Modernization and C-17 Acquisition Issues" from http://www.f
202 NorCal: You and Keesje both like using outdated sources for pricing the C-17. Use recent sources like TopBoom and you'll see what the price is for a C-17 tod
203 Revelation: Indeed, this is the way things go. C-17 now has the advantage of reaching maturity. Hopefully A400M can say the same thing too, 10-15 years from now.
204 Zeke: Unless you can provide us with the 2009 Department of Defense Acquisition Report for the C-17, the 2008 numbers are as recent as they get, it reflect
205 NorCal: No I don't do the same. I simply point out how you and Keesje include all the bonus items in the C-17 vs. just the airframe cost of the A400M. I say
206 Lumberton: The shake down begins, and I'm not talking about the preparations for first flight. EADS wants 5 bln euros from A400M buyers-Germany UPDATE 2-Soaring
207 Revelation: Interesting timing on the new leak. It seems timed to get the bad news out soon enough before first flight so it'll be "old news" by Friday's first fl
208 Par13del: And all EU members and their supportes will state that is the price they are willing to pay to have their own native military transport and not have
209 Keesje: I think in reality the Europeans have a problem with a A400M cost rise that still keeps it way, way below C-17 cost price. I think the American influ
210 Lumberton: Huh? I haven't seen any evidence of that here!
211 Par13del: I never said they did not have a problem with it, just that it won't be cancelled, I'm sure they will be complaining while paying the bill Nationalis
212 Astuteman: Like 1995? About normal for a new defenc(s)e programme I would say.... either side of the atlantic Rgds
213 XT6Wagon: Sadly this is almost an understatement. Its troubling that it seems like 100% of the recent programs are a plane made of smoke and mirrors put into a
214 Revelation: This one has some interesting info on how negotiations are seen to be progressing: So it seems Britain, France and Spain are in favor of spending the
215 NorCal: Umm....no , like 2009 I'd say a 2009 price quote of $225 million is pretty current, don't you agree Astuteman? Again I don't care what the USAF paid
216 Keesje: I think a undefined keep the line open, political, national purchase of 3 aircraft can't be taken as representative for wath european airforces shoul
217 NorCal: And a 4 aircraft order from a brand new operator (read: additional training costs for crew, mx personnel, etc.) is a good indicator of what the price
218 KC135TopBoom: Zeke, you didn't mention a few other things in that report that show the price per C-17 is not anywhere near $280M. It also say, in that same graph;
220 JBirdAV8r: I see you pandering about with your figures from one indirect source, but precisely what evidence beyond that article do you have to indicate that $1
221 Francoflier: Well, it's 5:00 am, D-day... LEZL shows CAVOK with a pretty good forecast.
222 NorCal: No he never has anything specific about [b] airframe costs, /b] as reply 94 shows he always tries to add in the extras to turn the C-17 into a $300 m
223 Baroque: That sounds to have the makings of an excellent compromise - NOT! Oh dear, think I will watch the FF and then not pay any attention until the sort th
224 Zeke: B/S I have not done that. That is how much "new" money congress is appropriating, it does not mean that no money is not already in the kitty, or how
225 BA0284: Dont know if this has been posted, but the live stream on the Airbus Military website is currently up and running http://www.airbus.com/en/A400M/ BA02
226 EPA001: " target=_blank>http://www.airbus.com/en/A400M/ The live-feed is now ended. "Rejoin us for landing" is what the site is stating. Which means she is s
227 Aesma: About the C17, what it costs to buy a new one is the marginal cost. The average cost can be very different, and I doubt taxpayers (of any country) can
228 Lumberton: The aircraft is airborne. I want to offer my congratulations before heading to work! Come what may, first flight is a tremendous achievement. http://w
230 Aesma: It seems she likes it so much she doesn't want to come back !
231 Jambrain: Video of FF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX-kIUYRyDk Lets hope the other bird with RR power can make it 4 first flights in 1 quarter !!
232 Keesje: I like the nickname "Grizzly" apperently used by incrowd,. It looks a bit like a Grizzly, fat, grey, black nose, big feet/shoulders.. Should we adapt
233 KC135TopBoom: Unlike the RAAF and RAF contracts, Canada went with two seperate contracts, one for the package and a seperate one for most maintenance, including th
234 Revelation: Actually when I saw it I thought more of a Panda than a Grizzly...
235 KC135TopBoom: I think it is more like the Sloth Bear than a Grizzly (Brown) Bear or a Panda Bear. "Adult sloth bears may travel in pairs, with the males being gent
236 NorCal: Do you have any evidence that the USAF is leaving money in the bank? Doesn't pass the common sense test considering there are a lot of programs the U
237 Tommytoyz: That's not how it works. The DOD does not have a slush fund to hold or spend money in the manner that you describe. I'm not going to get into the det
238 GDB: Well, they got there in the end! Or as a British commentator said of the first take off with another controversial European aerospace project 40 years
240 Zeke: It does not say that, nor does it say what you are claiming, the only way to know what was spent is by looking at the C-17 acquisition report after t
241 Wvsuperhornet: I wouldn't be superised to see the US purchase some of these aircraft when the c130 comes up for replacement. During th Bush administration the pentag
242 KC135TopBoom: I was talking about what you said in reply #224. Now you have turned around your statement. Was #224 a typo? Which you did not include or explain, fr
243 Overcast: TopBoom, I think you'll find that the contract was €20B for Development and production of 180 A400M, so that equates to 111M per A400M. There are re
244 KC135TopBoom: The C-141s were worn out. Yes, they could have been rebuilt, but the big selling point of the C-17 over reworked C-141s was the outsized cargo issue.
245 Zeke: The 1996 is the base year that is used for the accounting, just like the F-35 is reported in 2002 dollars. No, you only need to look at what the cust
246 Baroque: Don't know how you could say that KC, they could just as easily have put a new much wider body on it. Quite a simple mod once you figure out how to f
247 Cargotanker: The C-141B had already been stretched length-wise. Are you talking about stretching its width and/or height? (outsize is tall, too. Think of an H-47)
248 Keesje: I wonder why they did the extensive glass cockpit upgrade for the C-141C's for such a short period. Wing cracks and other fatigue stresses were disco
249 Revelation: And it seems that some C-5As will be AMP'd and shortly thereafter retired, no?
250 EA772LR: That seems way too low Zeke. I'm not saying you are wrong, however, I am saying that South Africa paid 104.6M Euros/A400M?? How in the world could Ai
251 Overcast: 104.6M Euros is not far off 20B Euros divided by 180 units. This was the contracted cost to develop and produce the 180 A400Ms for the launch custome
252 Revelation: Really, then why was the SA govt spokeman quoting numbers 4x to 6x higher?
253 Overcast: I think you will find that these are not the costs of purchase but what they estimated for purchase and use over a number of years(probably inflated
254 Revelation: I couldn't imagine, that's why I asked.
255 A342: Coming back to the topic, the A400M's future prospects, I do not share the scepticism which seems quite prevalent in this thread. Additional sales cou
256 Zeke: South Africa only paid a small deposit, they never really paid much at all. http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2004/04121009151003.htm The R47 billion s
257 KC135TopBoom: Yes, and that gets put back into the Wedgetail budget, and reduces it as far as the RAAF is concerned. No, about the same (within about 10-15 troops
258 EA772LR: That explains it. Thank you Zeke. For the record, I think the A400M is a wonderful plane, and will fulfill a vital role for countries in need of airl
259 KC135TopBoom: Yeah, I think Zeke is right that all SA paid was the deposit, I believe they have asked for the deposit to be returned. They are, I don't think we we
260 Zeke: How do you know that ? I have seen no evidence to suggest that Boeing actually paid the RAAF a cent, they put a charge on their books, but that is no
261 Cargotanker: I was a nav in -141s at the time. We were all kind of scratching our heads over that one. The C models all went to reserve and guard units.
262 Cargotanker: The C-17 can carry two rows of 463L pallets in a 9x2 configuration or one row in a 1x11 configuration. All USAF pallets have the same dimensions: 108
263 Baroque: It was an ill-timed joke to confirm KC's suggestion that the C-141 would be rather difficult to adapt to take Scorpions for example. I did have in mi
264 RedFlyer: I would add if the airplane puts all the delays and bad press behind it, and starts to perform to specs, just two additional customers for a handful
265 Revelation: Surely that's up to you, but some of us are having a very hard time seeing how the A400M will make it through its infancy in these very trying times.
266 Zeke: I didnt know 11, never seen a loading diagram showning 11. Seen information from AMC stating that, if I recally correctly it was used as part of the
267 Lumberton: I still maintain that the governments involved will accede to almost all of EADS' demands. From what I've read in the media, the idea of buying fewer
268 XT6Wagon: L O L where is the coastguard going to get the money? You seem to mistake the coast guard for an agency that sometime in the last 50 years has been a
270 KC135TopBoom: I don't see any of them as widly produced aircraft. The B-747BCF Dreamlifter, C/KC-97 Guppy/Super Guppy, and A-306F Belugas were all almost hand modi
271 Revelation: But that doesn't mean it's easy to get more money. As we see, the UK is shifting around money like mad to get the funds they need to support their ef
272 KC135TopBoom: I agree, the RAF now has a big problem with funding just about everything. If they stay with the A-400M, with the money they still have for it, they
273 Zeke: The UK have been doing this for years. On the fast jet front, the Harrier, Tornado are on the way out (the jag is already gone), the Typhoon/J-35 com
274 Francoflier: Here's an interesting blurb from Flightglobal: Airbus Military test pilot Ed Strongman gives his impression of the A400M after its first flight: http:
275 Revelation: I can see the program moving forward at 139 airplanes. As Lumberton is saying, I think they are looking for a solution (any solution?) that allows th
276 KC135TopBoom: Perhaps, but the new C-17 purchases were not planned years ago, like the A-400M was. I agree with that, You are right, the F-35A/C program is, right
277 Keesje: It seems EADS is negotiating a deal with ASEAN, a group countries apart from Malaysia including Indonesia, Fillipines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam
278 Lumberton: Hmmm.....Rafales? I suspect that its 55/45 that the UK government would opt out of the A400 before that happens. However, in the world of defense pro
279 Zeke: On the freighter side, the UK has a number of options : C-17, C-130J, A400M, CN-235, C-27A, 767F, A330F. Out of that list, the shortlist would be (ba
280 Rheinwaldner: And is the world's second best A2A fighter. Even the F-22 hardly kills it. Google this: Rafale UAE "4 0" "3 1"
281 KC135TopBoom: Is that country anywhere near the Philippines? While I agree the A-400M is a possibility for the ASEAN group, so would the C-130J and C-17A/ER. Those
282 Cargotanker: I gotta defend my beloved C-17 again! Assuming a disaster relief scenario (operating in/out of damaged airfields) there are very few scenarios where a
283 Keesje: The power of repeating. If we repeat this non sense very often, maybe more will start thinkingthere's some truth in it and who knows it becomes reali
284 Revelation: He has a gift for understatement. And if we don't have an agreement at the end of January, we'll give ourselves till the end of February, and so on,
285 Cargotanker: Apparently the A400M is a lot easier on the dirt surfaces than the C-17 is. Granted, the A400M hasn't demonstrated this yet, but I have no reason to
286 Revelation: Some interesting things about A400M from the AWST article posted by KC135TopBoom in the flight testing thread: Should North American firms even consid
287 Keesje: I think the C-17 are used seldom for rel soft runways. They are mostly used (& very successful) as strategic transports. Why not? There are many US s
288 Revelation: Well, none of us knows what's happening, do we? Since this is a discussion forum, care to add to the discussion? Will we see UK pull out of the progr
289 XT6Wagon: Here is the real question. What is the field performance of a A400M with 32T of cargo vs a C17 with 32T of cargo. Clearly the field performance chart
290 Revelation: It seems the much lauded soft field capability of the A400M vs C-17 is useful if: Field is sized so that C-17 can't make it in but A400M can Field is
291 JoeCanuck: What is the pressure, (psi), exerted on the ground by the tires of a C-17 and an A400, under maximum and also similar loads?
292 Lumberton: Good point. We can extrapolate from those negotiations to predict the outcome of the A400 negotiations. Only on the day hell freezes.
293 Keesje: The number of wheels are the same, the OEW of a C-17 is nearly twice as high as a A400M. Thrust reverse with 4 big props isn't the same as thrust rev
294 Zeke: The A400M would use less runway than the C-17, both for takeoff and landing. Props are far more efficient at low speeds at imparting thrust. The OEW
296 Cargotanker: I hear this argument alot, isn't that kind of like saying: "The A-10 isn't that great at killing tanks because it is only bombing people and building
297 WarRI1: Just what would a loadmaster know, after all it is just a guessing game is it not? I am sure the Anetters know more
298 KC135TopBoom: I agree. Some here like to use the metric system, then the imperial system, and sometimes even mix them in the same reply just to through confusion i
299 Zeke: From what I understand the A400M carries more troops than the C-17 (116 A400M, 102 C-17). The C-17 and A400M both have 54 seats permanently installed
300 Keesje: I do not know. Both large, so the contact area won't be that different probably.. KC10 I thought.. Anyway looking at the max payloads and design of b
301 KC135TopBoom: ICAO uses altitudes in feet, and the standardized altitudes are referred as flight levels in feet, i.e. FL350, FL290, FL430, ect. I think Cargotanker
302 JoeCanuck: I think someone already asked this but what are the capabilities, (takeoff, landing, range, fuel burn), of the C-17 at the A400's max payload? That wa
303 Zeke: You think lots of things....most of them are never backed up with any substance, just like that quote. ICAO is SI (i.e. metric for everything), as de
304 ThePointblank: Perhaps it is because the C-17 has been on the market longer compared to A400M as an actual product, vice one in development? Many customers aren't t
305 Cargotanker: I was trying to make a joke, by being incredibly arrogant to point of being sarcastic. I'll include a smiley face or LOL from now on...
306 JoeCanuck: I thought the Geneva convention prohibited premeditated lol'ing on civilian populations...
307 Cargotanker: My apologies, I made a math error. I was told (and read) 148 inches under the wing. I converted to 12' 8", it actually is 12' 4". You can see why I h
308 Spacepope: Can't you see this is THE A400M we are talking about? This is Serious Business! No time for joking when there are spider charts to be made! Now let's
309 KC135TopBoom: Even that will not be a good apples to apples comparison. A C-17 carrying the 81,000 lb payload of a maxed out A-400M would have significantly more r
310 Keesje: I think C-17 production will stop around 2012-2013 and the A400 production total will be roughly 3x the C-17''s when production is ended in about 2029
311 KC135TopBoom: So you think more than 660 A-400Ms will be built? Who is going to buy them? Ahhhh, the A-380 is meeting its promised performance. The A-330F is still
312 Keesje: Some opinions here are presented as facts. Praising national products is standard for many people here, but not enough. The competition has to be que
314 Keesje: Yes, as you see I use words like and that KC135topboom is a big difference with you. You just state your opinions as facts.
315 KC135TopBoom: Do you mean like these? Or how about these? Here is a few more "opinions" I posted as facts.
316 Revelation: And I think the UK will be reducing their commitment so the first batch of 180 will probably be 170 or so. And I can't think of any feasible scenario
317 KC135TopBoom: If all the European customers accept the 25% price increase and reduce their orders to stay at the same contract price, that will reduce the European
318 WarRI1: We could always have NG interceed with their partners and ask them to build it here in Alabama. What is the difference, Tankers for Air Force, design
319 Keesje: 1500 Herc are operated by 60 airforce (of 2100 produced) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules#Operators Then there are hundreds of illiushin an
320 Par13del: Your entire post seems to state that the A400M is a direct competitor to the C-17, something which a lot of it's supporters in this thread have been
321 WarRI1: That about says it all, US Air Force and national pride. Powerful Forces at work there.
322 KC135TopBoom: Only if Boeing managed the program, then it would make money. You forgot the Japanese C-X. You also forgot the possible C-130X, both of which would b
323 ThePointblank: The Japanese C-X ain't going to be exported, the Japs are pretty sensitive regarding military exports...
324 Cargotanker: I think that you're missing some recent decisions the UK has made in terms of price, capability, national pride, and jobs. The UK has a little at sta
325 Par13del: I guess I'm missing the line something to do with numbers and statistics. We have an entire thread where its supporters state the A400M and the C-17
326 Keesje: Exactly. And that makes it an extremely lousy C-130/ Transall Replacement. The C-17 has poor soft field performance, high operating & purchasing cost
327 KC135TopBoom: I believe the Japanese also want an export, civilian version of the C-X (and P-X). These could be sold to Air Forces as civilian aircraft modified ba
328 Revelation: No one really knows what an A400M is or what one costs till the EADS and the customers reach agreement. Some people here are fixated on what the A400
329 KC135TopBoom: Nor, does anyone know when that will be. The "time limit" for the renegotiations was recently extended, again, this time to the end of January (2010?
330 Revelation: Its an interesting topic. Does a defense contractor make more money via phased delivery like Eurofighter or not? Seems like more opportunities to hit
331 KC135TopBoom: In the US, yes, the OEM can make more money. In the US these phases are called blocks, each block a slight improvement over pervious blocks, but not
332 Allegro: Don't forget the new Chinese airlifter ... seems to be aimed squarely at the A400M. With each passing year the A400M is losing ground to other projec
333 ThePointblank: " target=_blank>http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...x.htm The Japanese are remarkably sensitive regarding dual-use hardware. I doubt they will all
334 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...5302/ Good news for the C-17 line in Long Beach.
335 Revelation: Interesting. Its reporting the following Yet again, from a totally different source we see a figure in the $200 millions, not the 300 to 500 million
336 Astuteman: No different to US defence procurement, I guess No different to US procurement I guess Same thing. Rgds
337 Keesje: Some here (like you) suggest the RAF and others better buy C-17s. They are replacing C-130s. Same for the Germans and French.. Then again the fact ai
338 Par13del: Probably has to do with the procurement process where competitions are demanded to somehow reduce cost. The C-17 won and is being produced, until a n
339 KC135TopBoom: Which US OEM can hold us over a barrel by threating to fire its employees? Read what I said again, I said the C-130J would replace the A-400M. I stil
340 Allegro: Frankly, if the A400M survives her financial troubles she will succeed. Airbus has always engineered and built fine airplanes ... I think most America
341 Trex8: parce que il est xmas et nouvelle an in my best Franglais
342 KC135TopBoom: Not sure what that means, my friend. I don't speak (or read) Franglais. Is that French or German? If it means the B-787 now has 4 test flights under
343 Keesje: Well either the A400M hit big unexpected problems withheld from the public & EADS is master minding euro plans to somehow extract more secret subsidi
344 Trex8: for the rednecks amongst us it means those lousy lazy Europeans were on holiday from xmas through the new year which is probably the reason the A400M
345 ArabAirX: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aErjIVe4aym0 Seems Airbus is asking for more state aid or Mr Enders has threatened to terminate th
346 Lumberton: The odds are good he'll get everything he wants. What's the alternative? Will the member governments walk away? No.
347 Revelation: Lets try not to be emotional and read into peoples desires, etc, lets try to just deal with the issues themselves, no? And one great falsehood is jus
348 KC135TopBoom: Thanks, that makes sense. EADS. Yes, he will get all of it. terminating the A-400M program means a lot of lost jobs, even though full rate production
349 Revelation: We thus are talking about many potential jobs as opposed to many real jobs. Itd seem to me the best way forward would be then to do as much of the la
350 Baroque: Can I introduce you to a neat feature of SI units. They are decimal, not base 12. So if it was 148 whatevers and needed to up a level, it would indee
351 Keesje: I start to wonder if some folks here know and understand the need and requirements of the European airforces that let to the A400M. Looking at the alt
352 Revelation: From what Ive been told Airbus uses less employees per airplane built than does Boeing Commercial, so they seem to have lost the plot line! No doubt
353 KC135TopBoom: Correct. Most of the production jobs don't exsist yet. No, I think you are wrong as it ignors the customers, the Air Forces of Europe. EADS agreed in
354 Keesje: Oops. it seems non sense, unfounded aquisations and a strong dislike of anything non Boeing / LM is taking over..
355 Lumberton: Then why don't you show him the error of his ways? From what I've read the discussion is not centering on procuring fewer of those aircraft, even wit
356 Baroque: I know, they are just clueless are they not! Which means of course they probably are not too good at getting the best of the teat either. No hope at
357 KC135TopBoom: Because he cannot. Keesje will not acknowledge the faults of anything EADS/Airbus/Airbus Military. Nor, will he acknowledge the wants and needs of th
358 Lumberton: Reports in the media today indicate that Tom Enders has upped the ante by threatening to walk away from the program. This threat worked in the last ta
359 Keesje: Expect some euro politician striking back with an even more dramatic idea.
361 Revelation: Yes, but I'm not reading much new from the earlier report as follows: My commentary at the time was: And it seems Herr Enders is indeed playing hardb
362 11Bravo: EADS isn't going to walk away from this program. The Airbus countries and customers will pay most of what Enders is asking for and what's left will g
363 BlackProjects: AFP are reporting that EADS is looking at walking away from the A400M Project. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ALeqM5g-JYDMxcRjkPV1NZ34BcemUNWv
364 Revelation: Maybe Enders is trying to tank the stock price so he can man a million or so EUR selling his options short like Forgeard did? In any case, I can imag
365 Lumberton: We are in disagreement. I maintain they'll pay ALL--and probably more! Speaking of which, two new sources for cost increases in the media today. This
366 KC135TopBoom: Yeah, from the French, but it seems the Brits and Germans are holding firm. Collect the delay penalties from EADS and rush to order C-130Js and C-17A
367 Revelation: I think it'd be better to give a bit more context: The program would cost the customers €25bn, and would cost EADS €6bn for a total of €31bn. Q
368 Lumberton: Bloomberg reports that the German government is still holding the line--for now. Frankly, the whole drama unfolding in the media seems anti-climatic t
369 Lumberton: Interesting take on possible outcome for the RAF: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest That's quite a deal, pay t
370 Par13del: If the same "math" is used by the other EU countries, the problem is probably solved, now they just have to deal with any non-EU orders. If this math
371 Revelation: I don't think so. The big problem is the huge overrun of the development budget, and cutting production costs only goes so far to cover that. EADS ha
372 Baroque: Surely if he was shorting and about to give bad news he would be buying and not selling, or have I got the wrong end of the stick - again! Mind you b
373 KC135TopBoom: That would be a cut of 6-11 airplanes for the RAF. But to put it into a real prospective, that is a cut of 1-2 RAF Airlift squadrons, along with basi
374 KC135TopBoom: I'll ask the Moderators again to lock this thread and begin a part #2.
375 GRIVely: If the RAF and Luftwaffe, at least, actually reduce the number of aircraft they are willing to accept for the currently quoted costs, we will have to
376 Revelation: I dunno, I always end up with the wrong end of the stick too! I always liked the Sud Caravelle (who gave its nose to the A300, no?) and those nice li
378 N328KF: BusinessWeek is reporting that Airbus is considering shitcanning the whole project. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D1GFCO3.htm
379 Revelation: Nothing much new there, except the Airbus spokesperson is named, and they openly talk about having lists of engineers that will be moved to other pro
380 Keesje: Sure enough if the US Dollar further drops to say 33 Euro cent, the cost for the A400m could escalate to a staggering .. well $75 Billion !!?!!! That
381 Revelation: Meanwhile, over in: A400M Flight Test Prototypes (by Keesje Jan 4 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) Spantax reports: "A Belgian newspaper spec
382 DEVILFISH: While Defense-Aerospace has this Breaking News teaser from AFP ..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...more-money-into-a400m-project.html Turkey
383 Wingman: So would France still stick with their order even if the price per copy hit $1B? That would be awesome, just for sheer bragging rights to needle your
384 Astuteman: But let's not pretend that's any different to the political hard-balling that US defence contractors play, especially Boeing And there's no differenc
385 A380Heavy: From what I can gather, although I admit this may be a simplistic view, the A400M would seem to be a very good aeroplane. Ok this has yet to be proven
386 Lumberton: I've predicted, ad nauseum, that they won't. This article seems to reinforce that sentiment. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60609A20100107?typ
387 A380Heavy: " target=_blank>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL...sNews I'm sorry Lumberton, I couldn't be bothered to read through the whole thread unfortunate
388 Lumberton: I didn't mean it that way! No apology necessary. IMO, if it ever came to that, it would take a partner with very deep pockets to share the risk. I do
389 Par13del: Getting to be a long thread, but taking a line from the tanker thread which is applicaple because these are both military a/c, what about the needs of
390 Revelation: Correct and I don't think I've said otherwise. I've been just as grouchy about VH-71 for instance. I think it's significant to note that FR and DE ac
391 KC135TopBoom: You always wanted to be able to say that, didn't you? The number of A-400Ms the RAF can afford is dwindling to a number that is not economical for th
392 Revelation: Airbus likely to receive more A400M funds -paper Seems the EADS threats are having some effect. It sounds like a "lets split the difference" kind of o
393 A380Heavy: I accept that the C-130J has the capabilities now and the C-17 does all but the tanker role. The business and military case is simply that the C-130J
394 Revelation: The A400M was designed right after the Kosovo conflict. It seems to be designed for moving stuff around the Continent, not dragging stuff off to Afgh
395 Keesje: I had expected some (send out) second ring politician to hit the newspapers with comments to Enders like "Make my day, keep your stuff, 100 better wa
396 KC135TopBoom: Correct, as far as pulling political strings, Boeing is on the "second string" of the ball team. They really are not as good at it as some give them
397 Morrisond: Here is an easy "Political" Solution. Tongue in cheek as these are really wild guesses.. Switch the 180 A400 orders to C27J(Cost $5.4 billion at list,
398 EPA001: Maybe that is because they did not loose so many high-steak contracts like the tanker deal before?
399 KC135TopBoom: That could be because they win bids on the types of airplanes the USAF and USN wants? Maybe it is because they build quality airplanes? Great idea, i
400 Keesje: I think there are big differences between the US and European tax payers. A "peace" mission here is opposed by about half the electorate. Ask people
401 EPA001: Maybe so? But I do not doubt Boeing builds high quality airplanes. But they are not the only one doing so nor are only US companies the builders of h
402 Revelation: Do you really think commanders are going to let the seven figure euro A400Ms flop around in the mud? Non issue, everyone is using civil airways. Pret
403 Morrisond: I was joking. I thought it would be very European to propose a solution that required the hiring of more civil servants... Besides when was the last
404 Par13del: Next you are going to say that Chpt.11 does not use govt. funds Note smiley. Except millions have already been spent on design and software work whic
405 Keesje: There's nothing bigger with real soft terrain capabilities then the C-130 atm. And they are much used in Afghanistan/Africa. The C-17 chews up the ai
406 KC135TopBoom: Therein is the problem. The US taxpayers have been paying a lot for the defense of Europe since the end of WWII. At some point in the near future, ei
407 Par13del: Nothing, I related the general A.Net belief that Boeing is always protesting awards with the Chpt.11 government funds, that's all. All the more reaso
408 Revelation: Actually it's nine figures not seven. Not a good time to be mentioning price again, is it? The A400M very well may not be the right aircraft either.
409 KC135TopBoom: Okay, I had misunderstood what you were saying. So, the European Anti-Military Crowd can be bought with just the offer of more jobs? Keesje gets very
410 Revelation: I don't agree. I think the customers can come up with another 5B EUR especially if it's over time (i.e. paid as the airframes are delivered). This al
411 Par13del: On the military front we already see the UK trimming bases and equipment, dercreasing buys of ships and doing offsets to purchase additional a/c - Chi
412 KC135TopBoom: They will save their own political a$$ to keep the Airbus side of EADS going, even if they must sacrifice the A-400M. The A-400M cannot live up to it
413 Keesje: No, but you are probably not really interested, you have your truths & I think they never change. I guess what someone said somewhere at some point i
414 Revelation: Again you attack the man and not the argument. The UK is in for 25 out of the 180 frames so roughly 4B EUR of the now 25B EUR A400M program. That's a
415 ThePointblank: You are comparing apples to oranges; one is the total program cost, the other is a fly-away cost. In order to make a reasonable comparison, you need
416 Sejowa: What $1,059 million buys you: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2007/India_07-33.pdf 6 130-J's 4 spare engines ancillary equipment, partly for Sp
417 USAF336TFS: From Defense Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...buy-4-leased-c17s-add-a-5th-02506/ "In 2000 the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD)
418 Astuteman: No matter what you guys say, Boeing for certain don't see themselves like that. Rgds
419 EPA001: Somehow I find it hard to believe as well that Boeing would be classified in this regard as "second string".
420 Revelation: At this point in time it is a valid comparison, since one possible outcome (in theory at least) is that the A400M program collapses and the EADS repa
421 XT6Wagon: For this very reason the various Militaries around the world have developed parachute and sled methods of deployment or use a helicopter slinging the
422 Keesje: This conclusion was based on: I think there is limitted capasity to bring in serious load to soft fileds. The C130 can do short/bad field but misses
423 Revelation: Thanks for explaining that. I guess this is why the UK is busily making cutbacks so they can afford to buy more Chinooks. And it makes me wonder how
424 Wingman: This is a pretty elementary question but as it relates to this ability of the A400M to ferry things like Puma helicopters "inter-theater" and land on
425 Par13del: Do we have a list of the initial specifications that they are proposing to remove to save cost, I would add terrain following to that as well, is it
426 XT6Wagon: *YOU* have positioned the A400M as a valid C17 replacement many times in the past, going as far as to say the USAF should close the C17 line and buy
427 ThePointblank: The reality is that airdropping supplies is still a valid and frequent occurrence in today's battlefields... for example, Canada has in the past used
428 Zeke: But what are the facts ? I do not see the A400M as a C-17 replacement, but I do think it has its place. It is not true ... that the average load that
429 ArabAirX: Yes, what are the facts? Opinion, not fact. Opinion, not fact. And I doubt the Afghans actually care even if that were the case - its not like they c
430 Par13del: So based on what you have listed it sure seems that you like others are saying it is a replacement, in some respects superior, as usual I think I'm m
431 KC135TopBoom: Then how would you say it? That story says nothing. Yes, Germany and France want to continue the A-400M program, but in the case of Germany, at what
432 Revelation: The A400M certainly can be 'abused' as an inter-theater airlifter, but boy will it be expensive in terms of men, materials and facilities to do so. W
433 Revelation: And why would a commander land a (>140M EUR / >200M USD) A400M or C-17 carrying a medium helo on an unprepared strip, instead of landing it at a prep
434 Lumberton: No one can say for certainty at this point where the price point will be for the A400M when it enters service. I think it is safe to say that it will
435 Revelation: I agree. A400M was specified over a decade ago to deal with Kosovo-like scenarios. Now it would seem the sweet spot in the market is for something th
436 KC135TopBoom: Revelation, I think you ment to write the A-400M now looks like it will cost more than half the costs of a C-17, for less than half the capability. B
437 Zeke: Really, please show me a landing performance chart for any conventional turbofan aircraft on contaminated runways that does not suffer significantly
438 Revelation: I'm not sure why you seem to envision putting down a fully loaded A400M in some uncontrolled and unprepared runway, it's far too valuable an asset to
439 Lumberton: I don't know what the South African's were supposed to have paid, but at $100 million euros, I don't think they would have walked away from this cont
440 ArabAirX: You made the claim, you show it. You're just hot Airbus PR caught out yet again. The rest of your post is just, well....
441 A342: Getting back to the price issue, I've analysed the numbers a bit (all figures in Euros): 20 billion for 180 aircraft gives 111m/aircraft. For its sixt
442 Lumberton: Huh? 20 billion euros no longer applies. See below.
443 A342: Well, read on: It seems they are prepared to swallow the rest of the cost increases, or at least that's what the German media is reporting.
444 Spacepope: If you paid closer attention you'd see this from an article I posted a link to a few months ago. From Malaysia's recent press on the subject: "MALAYS
445 Revelation: It seems EADS prefers EUR 5B more for the full production run. The latest report: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20100109/tbs-eads-7318940.html is s
446 KC135TopBoom: So, you are saying no turboprop airplane ever ran out of runway? I think not. C-130s, Q-400s, Dash-7/-8s have all run off runways. There is a old, bu
447 Zeke: In the past few years with the Tsunami and earthquakes in Asia, that is exactly what was done. It is very common for civil C-130 and AN-12 to operati
448 Lumberton: By all means, read on: That number is consistent with the French Senate report last spring. Only very creative accounting and huge write offs will ge
449 Zeke: The suggestion that France would purchase 50 units of a new type of they have never operated and to make no provision at all for spares, training, an
450 Cargotanker: That's because they fly from Germany to Bagram and then to another location for gas, and then back to Germany, all within 24 hrs, and they do this mu
451 Spacepope: Zeke, I need to respectfully point out that the article, written in 2009 was written for the malaysian market, so quoting in MYR was a method to rela
452 KC135TopBoom: It is difficult to get snow and ice contamination on any runway at DFW (7 runways) in April through October every year, even in a very heavy t-storm.
453 Keesje: Financing foreighn deals indirectly with the R&D of the launch customers seems pretty standard. I'm not aware how much recent/possible C-17 customers
454 Revelation: One question in my mind is would they ask for the same thing today as they did when they were discussing the specifications for the A400M? And of cou
455 A342: Again, read more closely: No, it was scrapped right there.
456 Lumberton: The French senate report quoted the list price of the A400M last February as 145million EUROS per unit. Then multiply 145 million EUROS by today's US
457 Lumberton: BTW, AW&ST reported last year that USAF's price for the C-17 (you can google it, I'm done providing links tonight) was around USD$220 million per uni
459 KC135TopBoom: Then why do you keep insisting the fly away costs for a C-17 is between $300M and $500M each? Here we go again with a 15 year old GAO report that is
460 Zeke: I do note the frequency of use, according to the last GAO figures I have seen, less than 6 hours a day per airframe. If you can show an an increased
461 Revelation: Great circle mapper says Berlin to Kabul is 4795 km. Original A400M specs say: * Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cru
462 ArabAirX: Well thats a joke if ever I saw one! Even if the C-17 was $80bn, the costs, as you state for spares, support etc will push the A400M bill up from bey
463 Cargotanker: Yes, we frequently fly out of Afghanistan empty. That makes sense to people who understand that MRAPs are not produced in Afghanistan and then flown
464 GRIVely: If the A400M was in service today could it fly nonstop to lift humanitarian aid from European airfields into Haiti? If it had to refuel enroute where
465 ThePointblank: Just to be clear, that Leopard is NOT a Leopard 2; it's a Leopard 1A5 with extra armour attached, designated C2 (its the second major modification of
466 ManuCH: This thread is becoming a bit long. Please continue discussion here: A400M Flight Test Prototypes (by Keesje Jan 4 2010 in Military Aviation & Space F
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1562 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
, 6222 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 237 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
