Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SA Still Waits For A400M Refund  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12839 posts, RR: 25
Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8486 times:

On top of seeking damages from EPI, it seems EADS hasn't sent the refund check to SA for its cancelled A400Ms.

I wonder if EADS was waiting for the A400M "deal" to be reached, or if they are also thinking of "seeking damages" from SA?

Quote:

South Africa is still waiting for a 2.9 billion rand ($391 million) repayment from European planemaker Airbus, which has not acknowledged a cancelled deal, a minister said on Friday.
In November, South Africa pulled out of Europe's largest defence project when it cancelled a $5.2 billion contract to buy eight Airbus A400M military transport aircraft due to rising costs and delivery delays.

Ref: http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...90&subject=economic&action=article

It goes on to say that SA will reuse the money for military transports, but on a much smaller scale than their planned $5.2B A400M purchase, due to economic concerns.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7744 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8488 times:

Given that they cancelled, are they entitled to a refund.

Given the amount, this is presumably a deposit.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8439 times:

Yes, SA is entitled to a refund, as the contract was canceled because of costs overruns and delays, which, apparently, the SAAF had written in the contract. You may be right, this is the deposit amount the SA Government paid to EADS.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It goes on to say that SA will reuse the money for military transports, but on a much smaller scale than their planned $5.2B A400M purchase, due to economic concerns.

Well, it seems the SAAF is ready to put out their RFP for a cargo airplane, or have already been talking to someone (LM, Boeing?) about there order.

The R2.9B or $391M USD comes out to about 300M Euros, more than 15% of what the EU has agreed to give to EADS for further developement of the A-400M. No wonder EADS doesn't want to pay, they are also hoping the SAAF reorders their airplane.

"We are now ready to put before cabinet the necessary document that will assure that we can get this capacity and proceed with the necessary procurement processes. We are certainly looking to much less ... our economy cannot afford 47 billion rand," she said.
Sisulu did not rule out going back to Airbus. Boeing Co also builds military transporters."

That sounds like they got a price quote from Boeing on various numbers of C-17s. My guess is they have also talked to LM and got quotes on C-130Js or C-130J-30s.

This will determine how many and what types of military transports SA is considering, as well as how much money they can afford to spend.

"Africa's largest economy plays an active role in peace-keeping missions across the continent and is one of the largest troop contributing countries to UN operations in Africa."

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...90&subject=economic&action=article


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8413 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Given that they cancelled, are they entitled to a refund.

Yes, but the quote above says that EADS has never acknowledged the cancellation, which is quite curious.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Given the amount, this is presumably a deposit.

Agreed.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8236 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Given that they cancelled, are they entitled to a refund.

Yes, but the quote above says that EADS has never acknowledged the cancellation, which is quite curious.

That is typical for Airbus, if you look at airlines that have canceled orders, those orders do not seem to disappear form the orders and delivery pages. They still show IraqiAirways A-310 and A-300 orders from 1988, when clearly those airplanes were never actually built for or delivered to IraqiAirways.

Like their European customers, EADS no longer is under contract from SA. EADS essentially tore up those contracts EU for the A-400M, and SA notified them they had torn up their contract. Right now, in reality, EADS only has 4 orders for the A-400M, all for Malasya.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Right now, in reality, EADS only has 4 orders for the A-400M, all for Malasya.

Your statements never cease to amaze me. But I don't actually know whether I should laugh or cry...



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
That sounds like they got a price quote from Boeing on various numbers of C-17s. My guess is they have also talked to LM and got quotes on C-130Js or C-130J-30s.

Interesting.

Meanwhile in South Africa:

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


So the Hercules is too small and the C-17 too big/ expensive. Maybe it's a bit premature to draw final conclusions on the SA and the A400m. Maybe wait a few yrs.

Ouch. Better quickly dismiss me, the source, website, timing, or whatever, right?   


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7900 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Interesting.

Meanwhile in South Africa:

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


So the Hercules is too small and the C-17 too big/ expensive. Maybe it's a bit premature to draw final conclusions on the SA and the A400m. Maybe wait a few yrs.

So, where does it say the C-17 is too big and expensive? Canada operates 4 C-17s, and their military forces are about the same size and budget as SA. Also, we have been over the costs that show the A-400M and C-17 cost about the same. The savings would be SA would need fewer than 8 firm and 6 options for the C-17 compared to the A-400M, and can lift twice as much cargo weight and fly unrefueled throughout the whole of Africa. The fully loaded A-400M cannot do that. Plus, SA can join the "Bitish pool" of training, maintenance, and spares program set up between former British colonies of Canada and Austraila, plus the UK.

BTW, if SA is now demanding the refund from EADS, it sounds like they don't want to wait a few more years to order their new aircraft.

"The recovery of the money obviously is important because it allows us to bid further for any other capacity that is available," she said.
A local Airbus spokesman was not available for comment.
European company EADS reported a 2009 loss earlier this month, but managed to clinch a bailout with buyer nations that would further finance the over-budget project.
Sisulu said the ministry would likely forward documents to cabinet in May for an upgrade to the military's fleet at a price tag less than the 47 billion rand of the A400M procurement."

This 12 March 2010 story is more current than your 10 Feb. 2010 story.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...90&subject=economic&action=article


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Also, we have been over the costs that show the A-400M and C-17 cost about the same.

Incorrect. Countless links proving it's non sense. IMO it is only an opportunistic opinion of a few C-17 boosters.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The savings would be SA would need fewer than 8 firm and 6 options for the C-17 compared to the A-400M, and can lift twice as much cargo weight and fly unrefueled throughout the whole of Africa.

So you think it is only about payload? Interresting. Maybe flexibility mud field performance also has some value in Africa. And for SA it has to be a tanker replacement too..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Plus, SA can join the "Bitish pool" of training, maintenance, and spares program set up between former British colonies of Canada and Austraila, plus the UK.

The UK is a A400M launch customer / co producer  


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7681 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Also, we have been over the costs that show the A-400M and C-17 cost about the same.

Yes, we have and the latests costs numbers for domestic sales is $202M for the C-17, and $196M for the A-400M.

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The savings would be SA would need fewer than 8 firm and 6 options for the C-17 compared to the A-400M, and can lift twice as much cargo weight and fly unrefueled throughout the whole of Africa.

So you think it is only about payload? Interresting. Maybe flexibility mud field performance also has some value in Africa. And for SA it has to be a tanker replacement too..

I think I'll wait to see the SAAF RFP to see what they want.

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Plus, SA can join the "Bitish pool" of training, maintenance, and spares program set up between former British colonies of Canada and Austraila, plus the UK.

The UK is a A400M launch customer / co producer

Correct, but doesn't Spain want to take the wing production away from the UK and build them in Spain? If that happens, what will happen to the UK order for 25 A-400Ms? Oops, I guess I should stop using the "M" at the end of "A-400M", as EADS is now going to build a "simiplier" airlifter, at higher costs.


User currently offlineFlyingwaeldar From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2009, 108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7627 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Yes, SA is entitled to a refund, as the contract was canceled because of costs overruns and delays, which, apparently, the SAAF had written in the contract.
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It goes on to say that SA will reuse the money for military transports, but on a much smaller scale than their planned $5.2B A400M purchase, due to economic concerns.

Combining this two quotes could it be that the delays were a welcomed break for SA to get out of a contract they could no longer afford due to economic concerns?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
That is typical for Airbus, if you look at airlines that have canceled orders, those orders do not seem to disappear form the orders and delivery pages. They still show IraqiAirways A-310 and A-300 orders from 1988, when clearly those airplanes were never actually built for or delivered to IraqiAirways.

Your deep knowledge of the inner workings of EADS and Airbus always amazes me. It's incredible that such a lying, cheating, arrogant company can still sell some equipment whilst completely ignoring its customers.

Btw, is there a competition how many A-400M threads one can open in the shortest possible time?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7428 times:

Quoting Flyingwaeldar (Reply 10):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Yes, SA is entitled to a refund, as the contract was canceled because of costs overruns and delays, which, apparently, the SAAF had written in the contract.
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It goes on to say that SA will reuse the money for military transports, but on a much smaller scale than their planned $5.2B A400M purchase, due to economic concerns.

Combining this two quotes could it be that the delays were a welcomed break for SA to get out of a contract they could no longer afford due to economic concerns?

I believe that may have been a major consideration at the time SA canceled the contract. However, SA has now said they want to move on with another RFP, or sole source selection (depending on how you read the SA Government). Is there a chance for them to reorder the A-400M? Yes, but I believe it is a very small chance, maybe about 10%. It think the two main factors for them is first price, and second when they can get the aircraft delivered. Of course those are considerations in almost any new airplane contract.

There is also about a 10% chance (IMHO) the SAAF could get a reasonable deal on used C-17As from the USAF or possibly used C-130Hs from someone else. If the USAF truely does not need the 10 new C-17s added by the Congress this year, then they may want to put 10 used and older C-17s on the FMS market. I am only guessing here, I really don't know.

Quoting Flyingwaeldar (Reply 10):
Btw, is there a competition how many A-400M threads one can open in the shortest possible time?

Great question. But the same question can be asked about the current status of the KC-X program, EADS/NG drop out of that bid process, or the KC-767NG, too. What is good for the goose (A-400M) is also good for the gander (KC-767NG). That is debating those programs.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3677 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7409 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
That is typical for Airbus, if you look at airlines that have canceled orders, those orders do not seem to disappear form the orders and delivery pages. They still show IraqiAirways A-310 and A-300 orders from 1988, when clearly those airplanes were never actually built for or delivered to IraqiAirways.

They were indeed cancelled last year. They remained in the books, because the deposits were paid for when the embargo kicked in.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7363 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
That is typical for Airbus, if you look at airlines that have canceled orders, those orders do not seem to disappear form the orders and delivery pages. They still show IraqiAirways A-310 and A-300 orders from 1988, when clearly those airplanes were never actually built for or delivered to IraqiAirways.

They were indeed cancelled last year. They remained in the books, because the deposits were paid for when the embargo kicked in.

Thanks for the update on the Iraqi airplanes. But what about returning the SA deposits?


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7318 times:

I guess SA will not only get their money back, but also another "present" by having their workshare taken away.  


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 14):
I guess SA will not only get their money back, but also another "present" by having their workshare taken away.

My guess is SA has already taken the loss of producing some A-400 parts into account. They never reall had more than a few small peices around the wingtips anyway.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7230 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
If the USAF truely does not need the 10 new C-17s added by the Congress this year

I have to agree with your proposal of putting some old used ones on the FMS market. I mean, the USAF is basically trading out C-17s for the C-5 now which is total BS. Great going Congress!


User currently offlineFlyingwaeldar From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2009, 108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7135 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Thanks for the update on the Iraqi airplanes. But what about returning the SA deposits?

Maybe the cancellation letter got lost in the mail and EADS is still waiting for it?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
However, SA has now said they want to move on with another RFP, or sole source selection (depending on how you read the SA Government).

It will indeed be interesting how this story develops and in which direction they go.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7010 times:

Last October, the then CEO of the country’s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, asserted that the acquisition costs for South Africa for all eight A400Ms had soared from R17-billion to R47-billion – an increase of R30-billion (roughly €2,8-billion) for South Africa alone.

Airbus then and since has vehemently denied this.

The recent deal to save the A400M, agreed between Airbus and the seven European countries which are the partners in the programme, increases the costs for all these countries combined by €3,5-billion for 180 aircraft.

A crude calculation, assuming the cost increase is the same for each and every aeroplane, would mean the programme, if South Africa were still a member, would have cost this country about another €19,5-million or roughly R200-million per A400M, or something like €156-million or R1,6-billion in total.


E156 million extra for 8 aircraft is a lot. The numbers that surfaced earlier and got adopted by some around here tell more about the agenda's of who adopted/ used them, then about reality I guess.


http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...-hold-talks-about-a400m-2010-03-16


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6924 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 18):
E156 million extra for 8 aircraft is a lot. The numbers that surfaced earlier and got adopted by some around here tell more about the agenda's of who adopted/ used them, then about reality I guess.


http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...03-16

That is assuming the SA would have agreed, or been charged the same increase in costs as the EU customers were. But, that may not have been the case, as the only other "international customer", Malaysa is not paying any additional costs for their airplanes. So the SAAF could have paid significantly more than the EU will, or they could have paid nothing more, having already been charged costs overruns (according to SA).

But the talks in the link Keesje provides clearly are not talks to renew their order for the A-400, now minus the "M".

"European military transport aircraft manufacturer Airbus Military, a subsidiary of airliner maker Airbus, has revealed that it held talks on Monday with the South African government regarding this country’s cancellation, last November, of its order for eight A400M airlift aircraft.

“South Africa is a key country, strategic, its a bridge for us, a reference point for the future,” Airbus Military director Domingo Ureña-Raso told the Agence France-Presse news agency.

“South Africa confirmed its cancellation of eight A400Ms in December, but we continue to talk with the government to understand the reasons for this cancellation.”

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...-hold-talks-about-a400m-2010-03-16

What doesn't EADS understand?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3423 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6865 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
What doesn't EADS understand?

Where its going to find the money apparently.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6845 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
What doesn't EADS understand?

In the AWST article that Lumberton provided:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...To%20Take%20Months&channel=defense

says:

Quote:

Gallois suggests intense talks are underway with South Africa to get the former export customer back on board, after Pretoria dropped its eight-aircraft order last year.


So EADS is apparently working very hard to get those 8 frames back on to the order books.

I could see it happening because SA will want to keep its workshare, and because it seems EADS is now set up to deliver A400Ms of varying levels of functionality so perhaps they can tailor a less costly solution for SA.

BTW I created a thread based on that article to focus on the A400M contract amendment negotiations:

A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations (by Revelation Mar 16 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6802 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Meanwhile in South Africa:

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 SAA is quoted as stating the Hercules is to small and C-17 to big/expensive. The A400M tanker capability is key for the SAA (Gripens) .


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6668 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Meanwhile in South Africa:

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 SAA is quoted as stating the Hercules is to small and C-17 to big/expensive. The A400M tanker capability is key for the SAA (Gripens) .

We also determined that Gen. Gagiano's term is up this year, and someone else will become the SAAF COS.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
I believe that may have been a major consideration at the time SA canceled the contract. However, SA has now said they want to move on with another RFP, or sole source selection (depending on how you read the SA Government). Is there a chance for them to reorder the A-400M? Yes, but I believe it is a very small chance, maybe about 10%. It think the two main factors for them is first price, and second when they can get the aircraft delivered. Of course those are considerations in almost any new airplane contract.

There is also about a 10% chance (IMHO) the SAAF could get a reasonable deal on used C-17As from the USAF or possibly used C-130Hs from someone else. If the USAF truely does not need the 10 new C-17s added by the Congress this year, then they may want to put 10 used and older C-17s on the FMS market. I am only guessing here, I really don't know.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
This 12 March 2010 story is more current than your 10 Feb. 2010 story.

"The recovery of the money obviously is important because it allows us to bid further for any other capacity that is available," she said.
A local Airbus spokesman was not available for comment.
European company EADS reported a 2009 loss earlier this month, but managed to clinch a bailout with buyer nations that would further finance the over-budget project.
Sisulu said the ministry would likely forward documents to cabinet in May for an upgrade to the military's fleet at a price tag less than the 47 billion rand of the A400M procurement.
"We are now ready to put before cabinet the necessary document that will assure that we can get this capacity and proceed with the necessary procurement processes. We are certainly looking to much less ... our economy cannot afford 47 billion rand," she said."

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...90&subject=economic&action=article

Without a significant cut in the costs of the A-400, this does not sound like SA is "chomping at the bit" to reorder the A-400. If they did, and got the cost cut guarantees they demand, other A-400 customers would also demand lower costs for their orders.

Let's look at the options availble to the SAAF:
1. Reorder the A-400, at a much lower price
2. Order the Il-78.
3. Order new build C-17s
4. FMS buy used C-17s from the USAF
5. Order new build C-130Js, C-130J-30s, or a combination
6. Buy used C-130Hs, on tthe international market and have them refurbished.
7. Buy used airliner B-767-200ERs or B-767-300ERs
8. Buy used A-340-200/-300 airliners
9. Refurbish their current leased fleet of Il-76s
10. Buy used B-747-200F/CFs or B-747-400F/CFs

Personally, I don't think options #6 through #10 are viable, but you never know.


User currently offlineCheetahC From South Africa, joined Apr 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6324 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Personally, I don't think options #6 through #10 are viable, but you never know.

The C-130 is too small because because the Oryx helicopter does not fit without some disassembly, options 5 through 10 therefore won't meet this requirement.
The SAAF also does not lease any IL-76s, but merely charters them as required - it seems unlikely that SA would purchase a Russian aircraft.

This leaves the C-130, A-400 and C-17 as the only real options, of these only the A-400 is large enough AND can double as an inflight refueling tanker. The C-130 is too small, the C-17 is overkill and the A-400 is just right, but we might only be able to afford the C-130. In this case the government will either have to review foreign commitments or continue to charter aircraft as needed.


25 KC135TopBoom : Well, even though it is smaller, the C-130J can do everything the A-400 can, and more if needed. I am also not convinced you cannot modify a C-17 to a
26 Flyingwaeldar : Do you mean that despite a smaller cross section the C-130J can carry the same sized cargo as the A-400M and that it has the same or bigger max. payl
27 Post contains links Zeke : The A400M deal was two way, SA order the aircraft, and EADS provide work packages to the SA aerospace industry. SA still has its work packages. Canad
28 Post contains links keesje : Revelation calaculated that after recent cost rises the price would be around E130 million per aircraft. It depends on which Euro- Dollar rate you ta
29 Zeke : I have seen nothing to suggest that the additional funding EADS has tentatively been offered has in fact changed the purchase price of the A400Ms at
30 474218 : It's not just Airbus, Lockheed still has eight (8) Libyan C-130's, built and paid for in the 1970's, stored at the their Marietta facility.
31 KC135TopBoom : It can carry helios (more disassembly is required), it can refuel, it can land on unimproved runways, and can fly low level TA missions (some can do
32 Zeke : I have not seen it in a scene of a movie or play either, seen is the past tense of see. In all seriousness, you are right, I was out by a couple of m
33 Post contains links Revelation : That presumed the production run would be 180 frames, which we don't really know for sure. EADS has asked the countries to keep their order at 170 fr
34 Post contains links Zeke : I suspect you do not understand the contractual arrangement. The A400M is a OCCAR project, OCCAR have the customers, and EADS is the prime contractor
35 474218 : The C-130J is not intended to what the MC-130H can do, they have two different missions. Just like the WC-130J, KC-130J, LC-130H, AC-130E, EC-130V an
36 Zeke : They have two complete test frames now. Be a bit like saying Boeing is struggling to build a 787 or 747-8, they are in flight test phase, not full sw
37 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The standard C-130E/H/J can carry 2 RAH-70s (disassembled) (Bell-407), 2 OH-58s types (disassembled), or 2 AH/MH-6s (disassembled), or one of each ty
38 474218 : "Was designed to have" but has it proven it is capable of actually accomplishing what it "was designed to do"? The A400M is still years away from ope
39 KC135TopBoom : Sorry, I forgot to respond to Zeke before I posted reply # 37. While some production costs are non-recurring costs, others are not. The 2003 pricing
40 474218 : Seems like a addtional level of needless bureaucracy, but then again since the whole A400M program is a "make work" project it fits right in. Another
41 CheetahC : While the Oryx/Super Puma does fit into the C-130, another flight/aircraft is then required to transport the equipment needed to reassemble the helic
42 keesje : I think a C130 can transport 3 F16s, fully disassembled.. What are we doing defending, that a C130 can do anything a A400M can, why? Odd. I'm saying n
43 Post contains links Revelation : Go ahead then and tell me what type of misunderstanding you suspect me of having. Note that even EADS didn't bother to mention OCCAR in their press r
44 Flyingwaeldar : And here I thought when you said "everything" you meant "everything", but in reality it seems you meant "everything, but...". Or am I mistaken again?
45 Post contains links Zeke : Fairly light small machines, I suspect they could be carried in normal commercial freighters. Are any still in production ? Yes, that seems to be the
46 Revelation : And yet EADS own press release starts with: And not "OCCAR and EADS". OCCAR is an umbrella organization created as a legal convenience. It has no cho
47 Zeke : I am sure that is what Americans want to think, just like setting up the EU and the EURO. OCCAR member nations have no contract with EADS for the A40
48 KC135TopBoom : Isn't that the case with the A-400, too? You have a weird sense of humor. We are defending it because it is true, the C-130 can do everything the A-4
49 Post contains links Zeke : No it was May 2003 from http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...v/2003/2003/en_20030527_a400m.html That is why the current press release linked in rep
50 CheetahC : No, only the rotor head needs to be removed to fit the Oryx into the A-400. ? The above point makes the A-400 much more versatile than the C-130. I t
51 Post contains links and images keesje : The C-13 had dozens of version during the last 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules#Military_variants To claim the A400M is less ver
52 KC135TopBoom : Of course not. Even though one selling point of the A-400 is as a replacement of the C-130. I agree, so when will SA get its money back and be able t
53 Revelation : It seems we are back to the usual exchanges. You start out saying: And I show this is so: Then you throw out: And then we end up in some quibbling arg
54 Post contains images astuteman : I'm not sure why the C130 is allowed into the discussion at all. On another thread we're clearly instructed not to compare the woes of the A400M to t
55 rheinwaldner : How can I believe a single word if you argue so abstruse? Making this statement in the same post like the following one is absurd if the C-130 has no
56 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Not at it's max cargo weight, it can't unless it is refueled inflight. Here are the 20 tonne and 30 tonne range rings. The A-400 has a max cargo load
57 Zeke : You clearly made an error earlier on not realizing that EADS has no direct contract with any of the member nations. EADS clearly states in the press
58 rheinwaldner : "Not at it's max cargo weight" (A400) is completely different from "not at all" (C-130). Clearly there is no parity in capability and the A400 can do
59 KC135TopBoom : The current total costs of the A-400 program is some 31B Euros, some of that has been eaten up by EADS write-offs. Some of it is going to be paid for
60 Revelation : I have realized it all along, but find it to be of little significance. Baloney! Those customers were supposed to get 180 A400Ms with first delivery
61 KC135TopBoom : Why are we even discussing OCCAR? They have nothing to do with the sale, then cancel of the SAAF A-400s. SA wants their money back, so when will EADS
62 flyingwaeldar : Maybe it's because some members are so obsessed with the (problems of) A-400M that they open a new thread every time they see a new headline somewher
63 rheinwaldner : You said: This is so wrong that you have to work hard to reestablish your credibility... My remark about the different size, weights and ranges only
64 KC135TopBoom : It can. How many times do you time the A-400 will be carrying around 30, or more tonnes? The C-130J versions currently have some 12 international cus
65 rheinwaldner : Sure! If they owe it why do you think that I could not agree?
66 flyingwaeldar : And how many times will the C-130 carry around 30 or more tonnes? Not as often as the A-400M I would guess. Since the C-130J is an evolution of a pla
67 KC135TopBoom : At this point in time, neither airplane has done it. My guess is right now once the A-400 enters full rate production, it will go for 10-15 years. No
68 Zeke : Because it was a two way contract, as far as I am aware, SA would need to pay EADS more for the work packages it received that what they received in
69 KC135TopBoom : I should have said cargo weight only. BTW, the FF, it took off with 20 tonnes of fuel, (44,000 lbs), that was more than enough fuel for it. I remembe
70 zeke : More lies. The test equipment and water ballast alone on the first flight was about 33,000 lb. See for yourself in the press releases you have linked
71 rwessel : Do you have a reference? About the only thing along those lines I've heard is a Boeing pronouncement that they expect the USAF to start looking for p
72 zeke : Nothing public that I can post. Form memory it was only designed for 30,000 hrs, early aircraft have already been in service for about 15 years. With
73 474218 : How right you are. Many years ago one of the C-141 tech reps was bragging how the C-141 fleet had operated X amount of hours in a quarter (1/4 of a y
74 rheinwaldner : Maybe the USAF needs to buy civil freighters as workhorses. That would allow to relief the C-XX-series quite a bit. I am sure the new efficient civil
75 KC135TopBoom : Lies???? Fuel is payload, I said that. But fuel is why airplanes land at a much lower weight than what they had at TO. Fuel is the expendable portion
76 rheinwaldner : Oh, I really did not even think about the A400! I don't think that the the A400 is as efficient to carry boxes as a converted civil freighter would b
77 cargotanker : I don't think they ever will as long as Atlas, UPS, and FedEx keep delivering loads of cargo for them at a price cheaper than the USAF could ever do.
78 KC135TopBoom : As cargotanker said, the USAF does not need them. But if they did, the USAF could provide the defensive systems during assembly, like they plan to do
79 ManuCH : This thread, which originally was about SA waiting for the A400M refund, has veered off-topic. Therefore it is now being locked. Any additional posts
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Eads Courting U.S. Suppliers For A400M Program posted Tue Oct 28 2003 01:48:32 by AvObserver
NH-90 Still Too Heavy For Dutch Frigates posted Fri Jun 12 2009 07:53:08 by Lumberton
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:03:23 by Keesje
Airbus A400M - No Room For Mistakes. posted Mon Jun 11 2007 20:50:25 by WINGS
Due To A400M, UK Mulls Follow-on Order For 3 C-17s posted Thu Dec 28 2006 19:59:32 by N328KF
A400M For Nato? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 22:12:16 by RIXrat
A400M Delays Feed C-130J Sales posted Sat Mar 6 2010 08:36:01 by Revelation
BAE To Pay $400M Criminal Fine For Fraud posted Tue Mar 2 2010 21:50:15 by SlimShady
Osprey For Marine One? posted Sun Feb 21 2010 00:47:55 by DEVILFISH
A400M Talks In Final Round posted Fri Feb 19 2010 07:07:12 by Revelation