Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Delays Feed C-130J Sales  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12551 posts, RR: 25
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11885 times:

Something that some here said would never happen...

Quote:

March 6, 2010: Tunisia has ordered two C-130J-30, the extra long (stretched) model, joining a growing list of foreign, and especially Middle Eastern, nations doing so. Continued delays in the AirBus A400M (a similar, but larger, aircraft) has made the C-130J-30 an attractive buy.

Ref: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20100306.aspx

The article does read like a PR piece but that doesn't change the basic truth that many nations will replace C-130s with C-130s and not A-400Ms because the A400M is very expensive, not available for many years, is an all-new fleet type with lots of training expenses, and may be larger than some nations need.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 11868 times:

Production rate of the C130J raised from 1 a month, to nearly 1.5 a month.

The article suggests the new C130J customers wanted to buy A400Ms, but selected the earlier C130 instead.

I wonder if that's right. The A400 is twice as big and I haven't seen A400M customers switching to Herc's. despite delays.

The requirements/ capabilities seem to far apart to be real competitors. The KC390 & C130J seem more comparable.

[Edited 2010-03-06 08:56:22]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12551 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11800 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 1):
The requirements/ capabilities seem to far apart to be real competitors

The issue I'm bringing up is one of market opportunity

That the market opportunity is mostly for C-130 replacement since it seems Airbus has the Transall replacement all to itself.

It's a hugely important market for A400M since the current run will leave EADS EUR 4.2B in the hole on the program, and because customers will only get their EUR 1.5B "loan" repayed as frames are sold to the export market.

This article is giving a lot of good reasons why the C-130J (and C-130J-30) may win lots of that replacement market.

It already has won the biggest customer, the USAF.

And others have followed.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11777 times:

If the C130's bay dimensions and 20t payload will be just fine for the next 40 yrs, the C-130 may still be a very good buy.



At this moment there are little alternatives in the 20t segment. The KC390 is still yrs away.



User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12551 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11753 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
If the C130's bay dimensions and 20t payload will be just fine for the next 40 yrs, the C-130 may still be a very good buy.

For some nations it surely will be.

For the USAF they have the C-17s and C-5As for the heavier stuff.

For other nations, it's not so much about the heavy stuff, it's largely about replacing an existing capacity at the lowest acceptable cost.

Still others may not have an infrastructure to replace and have heavy IFVs to move and money to spend, but I don't think it'll turn out the way the infamous EADS chart implies:




Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11645 times:

Didn't the USAF request a proposal last yr?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-with-savings-from-c-130-c-5.html

Payload C-17 is 80t, C130J payload is 20t. Maybe there is a niche.



Some think the USAF wants to close the C-17 line, because DoD says they have more then enough already. The C130 fleet is old, the -J production line is at low rate production. We´ll see what happens in the next 10 years.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11610 times:

From Defense News, reporting on the USAF future aircraft acquisition plan.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4527338&c=AME&s=AIR

Quote:
Mobility

KC-X: The service is set to spend about $30 billion through 2020 to develop and buy 109 new tankers.

■ Intra-theater airlift: The Air Force should continue to buy C-130J Hercules to replace older C-130 E and H models. The study projects buying 63 C-130Js through 2020 for about $6 billion.

■ Strategic airlift: The service wants to maintain an fleet of 314 large cargo planes, a mix of 223 C-17s and 91 C-5s. The report recommends the Air Force begin development of a new cargo jet starting in 2015.

Sorry, keesje.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11583 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
The report recommends the Air Force begin development of a new cargo jet starting in 2015.

To replace the C-17 or the C-5? apologies for my ignorance, but what is the difference in capability between those 2 planes? thanks!


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11546 times:

C-5 is almost double the C-17 max at around 140 US tons.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11540 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 1):
Production rate of the C130J raised from 1 a month, to nearly 1.5 a month.

What is the current production rate of the A-400M? I seems I have forgotten what it is.

Quoting keesje (Reply 1):
The article suggests the new C130J customers wanted to buy A400Ms, but selected the earlier C130 instead.

I wonder if that's right. The A400 is twice as big and I haven't seen A400M customers switching to Herc's. despite delays.

Nice try, Keesje. No current is looking at replacing their current order of A-400Ms for C-130Js or C-130J-30s. That may change when EADS demands more money next year. But former A-400M customer South Africa may very well buy some C-130Js, C-130J-30s, or C-17As. Yes, they could also order the XC-2 or the C-390 too. I expect Malaysa to cancel their order for 4 A-400Ms once the EU customers figuer out they will be paying for those airplanes, too and demand EADS get a new contract with a new price for Malaysa.


User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11535 times:

Thank you nomadd, that's very helpful indeed!!

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11247 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
But former A-400M customer South Africa may very well buy some C-130Js, C-130J-30s, or C-17As. Yes, they could also order the XC-2 or the C-390 too.

Yes, or A400M's.

SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano in the same month confirmed the service still has a need for an airlifter with a cargo bay larger in width and height than the Lockheed Martin C130 Hercules. Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size. http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...rt-&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
I expect Malaysa to cancel their order for 4 A-400Ms once the EU customers figuer out they will be paying for those airplanes, too and demand EADS get a new contract with a new price for Malaysa.

Yes, or they might buy even more in a multinational Asian deal. Several countries (incl Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam) are looking for cooperation and economies of scale to have sufficient capasity during disaster relief etc. as reported a few months back.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11120 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
But former A-400M customer South Africa may very well buy some C-130Js, C-130J-30s, or C-17As. Yes, they could also order the XC-2 or the C-390 too.

Yes, or A400M's.

Man, what are you smoking?

Quoting keesje (Reply 11):
SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano in the same month confirmed the service still has a need for an airlifter with a cargo bay larger in width and height than the Lockheed Martin C130 Hercules. Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size. http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...d=159

The SAAF and the SA Cabinet canceled the A-400M program on 5 Nov. 2009, just 5 months ago. If they jumped back into buying the A-400M now, the costs would be significantly higher now than even in last Nov. because of the "new" agreement for funding and loans to EADS by the EU customers connected to new international sales.

Quoting keesje (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
I expect Malaysa to cancel their order for 4 A-400Ms once the EU customers figuer out they will be paying for those airplanes, too and demand EADS get a new contract with a new price for Malaysa.

Yes, or they might buy even more in a multinational Asian deal. Several countries (incl Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam) are looking for cooperation and economies of scale to have sufficient capasity during disaster relief etc. as reported a few months back.

Not going to happen now with the new international price tag. For all of those countries, the C-17 becomes a very sweet deal. The MISV Asian Block countries are on just as friendly relationships with the US as they are with the EU.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11030 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
But former A-400M customer South Africa may very well buy some C-130Js, C-130J-30s, or C-17As.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size.

They ruled out the C-17 TopBoom, and not the A400M. Sorry.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Not going to happen now with the new international price tag. For all of those countries, the C-17 becomes a very sweet deal. The MISV Asian Block countries are on just as friendly relationships with the US as they are with the EU.

You know nothing about the international price tag of the A400M and C-17. Claiming they costs about the same is a pipe dream. As confirmed by the SAAF you pulled into the dscussion.

All the hoopla is the press surrounding the A400M even had some folks starting to believe the A400M would be cancelled. In the US press the A400M can not be mentioned without the word "troubled" in front of it. We have seen it before, anything advanced and powerfull not from here is being eyed with great sceptism. As far as I can see the A400M proved fine during test flights, the market is wide open and little competition is on the horizon. The nearest competitors are pushing desperately discounted aging products on to the market. Saying the A400M is not operational yet or few have been produced is nothing more then smoke and mirrors. Interrested airforces fly in specialists who fly the prototypes, verify results and report back. There may be more then you think.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10978 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
In the US press the A400M can not be mentioned without the word "troubled" in front of it.

When did Der Spiegel become part of the "US press"?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,680060,00.html

Quote:
Troubled Troop Transporter
Spain Says Deal Reached to Rescue A400M

I could search for more european sources, but I think you get the point.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10940 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size.

They ruled out the C-17 TopBoom, and not the A400M. Sorry.

Only according to the European Press. I wonder what the SAAF and SA Cabinet are saying? LtGen. Carlo Gagiano was part of the team that intially selected the A-400M in 2005, shortly after he took Command of the SAAF. His tour in that position is up this year. Of course he is still saying the A-400M is the only one, but he is clearly wrong about the price. Both the C-17 and A-400M are within about $5M USD domesticly, and for international sales, with the full maintenance, training, spares, and support package the C-17 is about $300M each (depending on the size of the order), compared to the $750M USD each for the A-400M SA would have paid had they not canceled the order. Here the SAAF can get twice the capability for less than half the costs.

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Not going to happen now with the new international price tag. For all of those countries, the C-17 becomes a very sweet deal. The MISV Asian Block countries are on just as friendly relationships with the US as they are with the EU.

You know nothing about the international price tag of the A400M and C-17. Claiming they costs about the same is a pipe dream. As confirmed by the SAAF you pulled into the dscussion.

Ignor the numbers and facts all you want, the A-400M is no great deal at the prices it needs to be sold at. To "repay" the 1.5B Euro loan the EU is "giving" EADS at a rate of 10M Euros per airplane, EADS needs to sell 150 new A-400Ms just to international customers. That 10M (about $14M USD) Euro price is tacked on top of the current contract prices EADS says they need per airplane. The current EU price per A-400M is 155M Euros, or $211M USD, the current price for a USAF C-17 is $202M USD, or about 144M Euros. Then you throw in the package deals for international customers.

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
Saying the A400M is not operational yet or few have been produced is nothing more then smoke and mirrors

Oh really? How many production A-400Ms will roll off the lines in 2010? How many A-400Ms are flying operational missions with the various Air Forces in the EU? The answer to both questions is ZERO. The answer in 2011 for both questions will still be ZERO. The answer for the operational A-400Ms question in 2012 will still be ZERO. Production will start (in the form of final assembly) in 2012 at a LRIP.

Even EADS said the first A-400M will not be delivered (to France) until Dec. 2012, and that is only if the program has no more scheduling slips.

Who is blowing smoke and mirrors?

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
Interrested airforces fly in specialists who fly the prototypes, verify results and report back. There may be more then you think.

Go ahead, and name those "interested Air Forces" that are outside the current customers. You cannot because there is little interest. The same Air Forces that do have an interest in the A-400M, also fly to the US to actually fly the C-130J and/or C-17.

No they are not any AFs "flying" the A-400M for interest in buying them.. There is ONE flyable A-400M prototype, there is no "s" on the end of the word. Some Air Forces have flown the simulator, none have actually flown the airplane.

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
All the hoopla is the press surrounding the A400M even had some folks starting to believe the A400M would be cancelled. In the US press the A400M can not be mentioned without the word "troubled" in front of it. We have seen it before, anything advanced and powerfull not from here is being eyed with great sceptism. As far as I can see the A400M proved fine during test flights, the market is wide open and little competition is on the horizon. The nearest competitors are pushing desperately discounted aging products on to the market.

People believe it because Enders himself said it. The US press is correct in calling the A-400M program "troubled", what would you call it? You were the one who tried (and failed) to start the rumor that Boeing was going to walk away and cancel the B-787 program, yet it now has 4 prototype airplanes flying in the flight test program (over 120 flying hours on the books now), the A-400M has ONE, and it has only flown four times for less than 18 hours.

Quoting keesje (Reply 11):
SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano

On his way out, this year. The COS of the SAAF only does a 5 year tour, unless he get fired before that. Maybe we will see some movement on the next SAAF cargo airplane built in the US? BTW, you do know the SAAF has already had some officers visit with LM, don't you? They have not revisited with EADS.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12551 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 10649 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Ignor the numbers and facts all you want, the A-400M is no great deal at the prices it needs to be sold at.

  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
To "repay" the 1.5B Euro loan the EU is "giving" EADS at a rate of 10M Euros per airplane, EADS needs to sell 150 new A-400Ms just to international customers. That 10M (about $14M USD) Euro price is tacked on top of the current contract prices EADS says they need per airplane.

Loan? What loan? That's an "Export Levy Facility" that the customer nation's taxpayers will be funding up front and patiently waiting for repayment. Very patiently, since the first non-export delivery won't be till end of 2012 and then we'd need to see the approx. 180 non-export frames built and delivered before the first export frame is sold. I presume the exports must wait given how badly the customers need the A400Ms after the four year delay.

How do we know the ELF won't be paid at one euro per frame for the next 1,500,000 A400Ms sold to the export market?  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M Delays Feed C-130J Sales
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
France To Buy C-130J If A400M Further Delayed posted Fri Jun 5 2009 14:30:43 by N328KF
C-130J Or A400M - What's The Better Aircraft? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 07:19:12 by AirRyan
Easa Grants Initial A400M Type Certificate posted Thu May 3 2012 11:09:31 by RebelDJ
CH-148 Delays posted Tue Jan 31 2012 19:38:23 by ThePointblank
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24
A400M Maintenance Contract Hurdle posted Thu Oct 27 2011 03:32:46 by breiz
A400M Certification Update posted Fri Sep 9 2011 04:44:51 by breiz
A400M TP400-D6 Turboprop Gets Civil Certification posted Sat Jun 4 2011 11:27:56 by Revelation
More CH-148 Cyclone Delays For Canada... posted Thu May 26 2011 14:15:33 by JoeCanuck
General A400M Discussion Thread posted Sat Jan 8 2011 11:29:42 by moderators

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format