Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12017 times:

Reuters UK reporting. EADS thinks one of the participants will not stick to the terms of the deal hammered out earlier this year to rescue the program. The UK and Germany have been public that they want to cut back; the French seem to be sticking to their number, at least so far. Sounds like this program is still "up in the air" and to use that old refrain "nothing has been decided yet".

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLD...=RSS&feedName=tnBasicIndustries-SP

Quote:
Aug 6 (Reuters) - Airbus said on Friday that further cuts in orders for its A400M military transport planes, as one politician from Germany's ruling coalition suggested this week, would mean production would no longer be worthwhile.

The manufacturer cannot afford to build fewer than 170 of the A400M planes, a company spokesman said on Friday after a German politician called for a further cut in Germany's order.

"There would be no economic foundation for the A400M programme with under 170 planes," an Airbus spokesman said.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
118 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (3 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 11752 times:

EADS is telling its customers how many A-400s they must order? Are they saying "if we build it, you will buy it"?

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (3 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 11729 times:

EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.

I really, really, really doubt DE will cut 20 planes from its order.

If it comes anywhere near that, we'll be back to crisis meetings being held in the bowels of various government buildings all across Europe.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7075 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (3 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 11703 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.

If this number from inception of the program or after it ran into trouble with delays?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (3 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 11670 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.

If this number from inception of the program or after it ran into trouble with delays?

After it ran into delays. It is interesting that EADS never mentions the 170 minimum number of A-400 sales if it includes the 4 to Malaysa. So is the real minimum 174 airplanes, or 170? The number 170 only applies to the total sales in Europe.

Germany has had some bad luck with EADS products of late, like the Tiger and the A-400 which will not have the low level capability they want. The UK is broke and can afford very little. I expect Germany, and the UK to cancel more than just 10 airplanes combined.

EADS is not concerned about any airplane type meeting the break-even point in (profitable) sales or they would have canceled the A-380, which is still some 200-250 sales from break-even.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 11639 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.


This would make sense if EADS is never going to attempt to sell the A400 to anyone else. Don't they plan any follow on sales?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (3 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 11559 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.


This would make sense if EADS is never going to attempt to sell the A400 to anyone else. Don't they plan any follow on sales?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
So is the real minimum 174 airplanes, or 170?

Clearly, EADS is playing with the numbers. France has what, 50 A-400s on order? IIRC, Germany has the biggest order at 60 airplanes. The UK has some 25. If Germany and the UK dropped all their orders, France would still get their 50 airplanes. Malaysa will still get 4, and Turkey their 8 (?). I forgot how many Spain has on order, but they will get theirs, too. IIRC, someone has only 1 on order. EADS will yell loudly, if Germany and the UK canceled their 85 airplanes, but it will still get built. EADS will threaten to pull the wing work out of the UK, no work out of Germany (Germany owns some of EADS/Airbus).

There is no "real" minimum number of A-400s to be built. It is time to call EADS's bluff.

EADS really would like to sell additional A-400s to anyone who will buy them. They keep pressuring South Africa to renew their canceled order. They keep threatening the EU customers if there is any talk about more than 10 cancels. That is BS. But, as long as the price, and contract talks are still 'up in the air', no one will buy it, so EADS has to try to keep what is ordered any way they can.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 11534 times:

As there is no alternative to the A400M, i do not see EADS in any hurry for additional sales...

They will come as soon as delivery positions are free again.

EADS only wanted to tell the existing customers, that below 170 pieces, the contracted price per unit will be difficult to reach.

So, calm down, guys.

There will be some reduced numbers from the existing customers, but Germany for example, has ordered too many of the A400Ms. If they reduce their numbers, they free-up their money for other equipment.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5410 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 11526 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
There will be some reduced numbers from the existing customers, but Germany for example, has ordered too many of the A400Ms. If they reduce their numbers, they free-up their money for other equipment.

I don't think that is quite how it is working. I seem to recall the reduced number is due to the cost rise of the A400, so they are getting fewer planes for the original price. I don't believe there is any cost savings for Germany.



What the...?
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 11526 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Are they saying "if we build it, you will buy it"?

More like if they don't buy enough, they won't build it. It seems a little bit odd at this point, since most of the money has already been spent, but if EADS is sick of playing games with EU governments, I can't really blame them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
EADS is not concerned about any airplane type meeting the break-even point in (profitable) sales

We both know better than that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
they would have canceled the A-380, which is still some 200-250 sales from break-even.

That isn't an unreasonable goal for the A380 anyway.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
As there is no alternative to the A400M,

Boeing might want to try and breathe more life into the C-17. Especially if they continue to look at a narrower or lightened version.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
EADS only wanted to tell the existing customers, that below 170 pieces, the contracted price per unit will be difficult to reach

At which point the governments will have a decision to make. And perhaps EADS too, if they governments aren't willing to renegotiate prices.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11161 times:

@ BMI727


I really do not see the C17 in whatever new version as a competitive aircraft to the A400M.

They both work fine side-by-side, but none of them is a threat for the other aicraft.


Germany and other canceling some would be great for Airbus to deliver the ordered aircrafts sooner than expected.

In the long run, this aircraft program will be sold more than thousand pieces in different versions including different fuselage length.

Germany really should cancel 10-15 A400s and order 5 C17 instead of.

Reduced numbers of ordered aircraft with a higher utilization per aircraft reduces the overall operating costs a lot.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11152 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
I really do not see the C17 in whatever new version as a competitive aircraft to the A400M.

That's easy to say now, but what happens when the orders for the A400M go down and the price goes up? The larger C-17 starts to look a lot better and people might go take a second look to see if they might be able to get by with C-130Js instead. As it stands (grabbing some quick numbers off Wikipedia) the A400M comes in at about $180,000,000 per plane. The C-130J costs a little over a third of that and the C-17 will cost just $10 million more per plane than the A400M but can carry more too. Not to mention that Boeing might be willing to cut a deal in order to keep the production line alive.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11041 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
Germany really should cancel 10-15 A400s and order 5 C17 instead of.

Good idea, after all the RAF will have at least 8 C-17s, and maybe as many as 12, operating along side of their 20, or so A-400s and 24 C-130Js and J-30s.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3405 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
i do not see EADS in any hurry for additional sales


One wonders why not.... Somethings suggests that EADS wants to get these built,. close up shop and be done with it ... even with the renegotiation they will lose money... There appears to be no commitment for the long haul... At least Boeing is still actively marketing the C-17 and the "lite" version...


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10803 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
One wonders why not.... Somethings suggests that EADS wants to get these built,. close up shop and be done with it ... even with the renegotiation they will lose money... There appears to be no commitment for the long haul... At least Boeing is still actively marketing the C-17 and the "lite" version...

I disagree. I think EADS is trying to make sales and is participating in any bid that they have a chance of winning.

I just think the customer base will not expand till these "contract amendments" are signed to help signal the future viability of the program and to determine what "export levy" future customers will be paying.

I think everyone involved wants the program to go forward (witness all the crisis meetings of last winter/spring), but budgets are weak and it's going to be hard for any of the governments to make any sort of concessions.

A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations (by Revelation Mar 16 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) has a list of the things still needing to be resolved.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10764 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
Somethings suggests that EADS wants to get these built,. close up shop and be done with it ... even with the renegotiation they will lose money... There appears to be no commitment for the long haul

IMHO there is not the slightest chance of this program being cancelled or whatever. A400 means independence for Europe in the field of big military transport aircraft. It is a concept, an ideal, nothing you can beat with numbers, even in these troubled economic times. Thus, forget about prices, shorcuts, C-17, C-130, EADS quarrels, technical issues, etc. The plane will go on. And (as far as we know at present), it will be an outstanding plane that many many countries will buy in the future (Just my 2 eurocents)



A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7075 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10710 times:

Quoting spantax (Reply 15):
A400 means independence for Europe in the field of big military transport aircraft.

You might get complaints from the US side on their dependence on Europe for tanker a/c but........ 
Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
I think EADS is trying to make sales and is participating in any bid that they have a chance of winning.

I just think the customer base will not expand till these "contract amendments" are signed to help signal the future viability of the program and to determine what "export levy" future customers will be paying.

I think everyone involved wants the program to go forward (witness all the crisis meetings of last winter/spring), but budgets are weak and it's going to be hard for any of the governments to make any sort of concessions.

In my opinion an accurate assesment of the current situation. If EADS came out tommorrow and announced that the program would go on and production would start XXX and unit cost was XXX for the initial run, a good signal would be sent to potential non-EU customers.
If adidtional funds have to be sourced from EU governments 1, 2, 5, 10 years into the future there is no doubt it will be given so what really is the hang up within EADS on going full steam ahead?


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10613 times:

iirc the RAF is only taking 22.

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3405 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
If adidtional funds have to be sourced from EU governments 1, 2, 5, 10 years into the future there is no doubt it will be given so what really is the hang up within EADS on going full steam ahead?


are you implying that EADS will need additional hand outs to carry the program forward? Or do you mean a loosening of the current economic crisis will allow governments to buy more planes?

If the first is true, I doubt the program will ever be viable on it's own and it would just be postponing the demise. If an improving economic picture would translate into sales, maybe but not enough to sustain the program. From what I see many countries are reassessing the need for current sized military forces and once cut there will be reluctance to rebuild.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4315 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10460 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
Reduced numbers of ordered aircraft with a higher utilization per aircraft reduces the overall operating costs a lot.

Something tells me that holds true for a commercial operator, but I just don't see a military organization using a lot of that kind of analysis to make a decision (but I could be wrong). It might justify the higher cost, but in the end a military organization has a mission to fly and they have no profitability motives, unlike a commercial operator. So they either have the resources to fly the mission (e.g., x number of units) or they don't. If they don't they will look at alternative - cheaper - resources. Besides, the higher utilization rate will eventually bump up against expected - and unexpected - maintenance, or hangar, time.

IMO, I would think a higher utilization rate would actually be anathema to military equipment because it will ultimately shorten the service life of the equipment. Maybe that is not a bad thing because then EADS can look forward to replacement orders just as the initial orders are fulfilled???



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1682 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10442 times:

And you have to be careful that you don't over utilize a smaller fleet; that's how Canada got into a mess when the older C-130's started timing out, and the government was scrounging for ways to achieve the transport demand with a fleet that was rapidly becoming un-airworthy.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10322 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
If the first is true, I doubt the program will ever be viable on it's own and it would just be postponing the demise.

Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings. We also see Brazil entering the market too. I think the EU was hoping that the program would not have the budget explosion we've seen, and the old story of "half the C-17 at half the price" would have made sense to EU as well as export customers. I don't want to have the price argument all over again, but as mentioned above the A400M is a lot less interesting to the export market (and even the EU market) as costs increase and functionality is delayed or deleted.

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
If an improving economic picture would translate into sales, maybe but not enough to sustain the program.

Well, we've already seen EADS take write-offs for A400M, and I think more are to come. Clearly EADS wants to get the first batch of A400Ms built and out the door making as little loss as possible, and take any write offs necessary, and then be able to price the A400M at cost of production plus some profit, and not have to price them based on carrying the R+D losses forward.

It's more or less what MDD did with the C-17. Luckily for MDD they did all this in a healthier budgetary era and they always knew there would be more orders coming from the USAF and export customers once the start up issues were worked out.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7075 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10316 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
are you implying that EADS will need additional hand outs to carry the program forward? Or do you mean a loosening of the current economic crisis will allow governments to buy more planes?

See Revelations comments below, which I agree.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings. We also see Brazil entering the market too. I think the EU was hoping that the program would not have the budget explosion we've seen, and the old story of "half the C-17 at half the price" would have made sense to EU as well as export customers. I don't want to have the price argument all over again, but as mentioned above the A400M is a lot less interesting to the export market (and even the EU market) as costs increase and functionality is delayed or deleted.

My post was not meant as a flame on the EU, not sure how you mean the terms "additional hand outs", but the EU governments claims to want their own native abilities for everything, so this a/c will be built and put into production. How many and how much they cost in my opinion do not have to be made in stone at this point.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10192 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 17):
iirc the RAF is only taking 22.

That was before the new government's Treasury forced in a 25% reduction to the RAF and the rest of the MOD. Who knows where the RAF order stands now?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
I just think the customer base will not expand till these "contract amendments" are signed to help signal the future viability of the program and to determine what "export levy" future customers will be paying.

A future country can easily tell EADS "we want to buy the A-400, but we will not pay the EU export fees or loan repayment portions of our order". Then what do they do? Loose the sale, or work something out with Germany and France?

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
If adidtional funds have to be sourced from EU governments 1, 2, 5, 10 years into the future there is no doubt it will be given so what really is the hang up within EADS on going full steam ahead?


are you implying that EADS will need additional hand outs to carry the program forward? Or do you mean a loosening of the current economic crisis will allow governments to buy more planes?

I think he means both.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10181 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings.

The United States does not have a military transport to offer. The C-17 and the C-130J are offered by privately held companies not any government entity.

The C-130J was developed by Lockheed using company funds, with the launch customer being the UK MOD.


25 KC135TopBoom : Correct. Both the C-17 and C-130J have been selling well, while the A-400 orders are at best stagnent.
26 ThePointblank : I would argue that this is primarily due to the more immediate availability of the C-17 and the C-130J than anything else. As many nations are in the
27 XT6Wagon : Even if the A400M was avalible at the time, no one in Canada is going to even mention the A400M as a possiblity. Airbus burned that bridge in epic fa
28 JayinKitsap : Possibly China could order 5, fly 4 and take apart 1 to reverse engineer it. Then they would make the A200, same plane but half the cost.
29 KC135TopBoom : Which, due to the 4 year delay in the A-400 program is a major part of why its sales are stagnent. Another problem seems to be its capabilities or la
30 Post contains images Revelation : I hope the A400M has a WC capability!
31 ThePointblank : Well, not YET. Those models of the C-130 came a decade after the introduction of the C-130.
32 A5XX : I think Canada should add 4 - 5 A400M in it's inventory IMHO. It would be the perfect plane to replace many of the ageing C130's, and would be a nice
33 par13del : Agree, but do we have to wait a similar period for the A400 to get them? What made the initial a/c so impressive and possible expensive was the numbe
34 XT6Wagon : Really? You know anyone advocating the A400 in canada would be lucky to serve out thier term, either as a politican or member of the military. There
35 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : That is nearly true. The RC-130B first flew in 1957 or 1958, just 3 years after the the first C-130A was delivered to the USAF. The USAF had talked a
36 Post contains links lumberton : Germany to take 53 according to this article; the UK 22. The total now stands at 170. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0A400M%20Agreement&ch
37 KC135TopBoom : I believe that accounts for the 10 cancelled A-400s EADS said they would accept. But, that is only 2 of the 8 EU customers. Any info on if the remaini
38 connies4ever : Agreed, and the engine issue is probably the single main issue behind the huge delays in getting this thing into service, as well as a large part of
39 KC135TopBoom : Don't forget, the CF is to decide on about 6 CC-115 replacement aircraft for the 19 Wing soon. The contenders are the C-27J and C-295. The replacemen
40 connies4ever : I believe the req is for 17 a/c, as this will enable retirement of older E Hercs from SAR role, as well as a handful of Twotters. I think the C-27J s
41 fridgmus : Excuse my ignorance, I'm not in the Aviation Field, but with the USAF hinting at a "fat" C-130 or a possible replacement, does the A400 stand a chanc
42 Post contains links XT6Wagon : P&W canada won the engine contract for the A400M. This was not what the EU nations wanted so they forced Airbus to select again. This resulted in
43 Post contains links lumberton : I can't predict the future, but I don't think the A400 is going to fly in USAF colors. Here's a brief summary of the options being considered: http:/
44 fridgmus : You know, even for a guy like me outside the Aviation Industry, having a consortium to build one engine over an established and experienced company s
45 Bennett123 : "burning your bridges" basicly means destroying your ability to change your mind. So by rejecting the Canadian engine, they lost the opportunity to ge
46 keesje : The consortium partners in Europrop build about 20 types of turboprops for decades. E.g. powering the C130J, Osprey and many helicopters. Some seem t
47 lumberton : Probably the requirements from the customer, not a.net. Steve Trimble's blog noted: [Edited 2010-10-26 13:53:40]
48 JoeCanuck : Perhaps there just isn't that much of a requirement for a plane between the C-130 and the C-17 past the 170 A400's currently on order. Why would LM w
49 KC135TopBoom : Without knowing the capabilities of the small C-17 or Fat C-130, how can you say that? Perhaps, but that capability in that range seems to already ha
50 Post contains links and images keesje : There is a market and sofar LM dominated it. Doing nothing usually leads to being driven out of a segment. Maybe it is already too late (KC-390 + A40
51 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Then why aren't there more A400's on order? There are fewer A400's on order than there used to be. If the market was big enough, the order book shoul
52 MEA-707 : I once had lunch with some top Airbus/A-400 guy and he explained (all public knowledge) that the A-400 launch is way different from a commercial aircr
53 Post contains links lumberton : I know there are those on this site that argue vehemently that the KC-390 won't affect A400M orders. With all due respect to those passionate views,
54 KC135TopBoom : Well, they never made it to their 200 airplane order threshold. The most orders they had was 192 airplanes, when the SAAF had 8 on order (even counti
55 Post contains links and images keesje : I see EADS building 400-600 A400Ms in the next 20 yrs. Key is it can move around equipment the C130 and KC390 cannot, the C17 line is on live support
56 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : You must have just smoked a jeffrey, because you're high! We are about to enter a decade, or more, of extreme contraction by western powers, much lik
57 connies4ever : Have to agree with UH60 here, you must be smoking something. The A400M will likely not even get to 200 sales: it's too expensive, is unproven, and in
58 Post contains images Lumberton : While we're giving out opinions here's another. Just because it carries something "bigger than a breadbox" doesn't mean that we will need, or be able
59 UH60FtRucker : Honestly, there should probably be an independent thread on this subject, but it's complex and detailed in it's own respect. ...But trying to keep th
60 Post contains images connies4ever : Yup. Re point 2) -- I think spending in the defense area for Europe also helps them to maintain a credible technological competency level which has a
61 Post contains links and images keesje : Nobody knows. Europe has been done global interventions for the last 500 yrs, frankly I don't recall any period of 20 yrs when member countries staye
62 Post contains images connies4ever : Agree. and perhaps I'll start one today ... but, after work. But first, time for a
63 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : What?????? India and Austraila will have the C-17 and C-130J, so does the US (in addition to the C-5). Brazil will buy their own home grown airlifter
64 Post contains links Revelation : And 50% over budget (especially when you consider EADS writeoffs) and still no signed contract amendment (theat was going to happen in the spring, th
65 keesje : We never needed that and still don't. It can operate from unprepared runways and move big machinery, refuel fast jets an dhelicopters. Neither the C1
66 Revelation : What's this we stuff? Your nation has C-130Hs and does not have A400Ms on order. It would seem if you want to move your Leopards it better be by rail
67 474218 : Do you know the meaning of the word "successful"? Name one "success" of the the UN in the last 20 years? Maybe Rwanda, Somalia or Yugoslavia? The lat
68 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Do you really think that will stop Iran or North Korea? It didn't stop Iraq from invading Kuwait in 1990. It didn't stop the Serbs. It will not stop
69 Post contains links keesje : Aren't those nations proving the point? They get isolated, are not taken serious on serious issues. If the Nations Commission on Human Rights says yo
70 UH60FtRucker : I think this thread has run off course, and I take some responsibility for that. I will be starting an independent thread shortly, discussing the broa
71 kanban : 250 max... unless the Rusians exchange oil or gas for some....
72 XT6Wagon : nah, they would just buy at most western engines and avionics for one of thier domestic frames.
73 Post contains links and images keesje : http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/may/01/00030/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection Trying to add weight to your opinions by sugg
74 JoeCanuck : The USA is talking about cutting back on military expenditures, and they already have 3 large cargo planes in their inventory...I doubt they plan on
75 KC135TopBoom : No, Keesje, he isn't. He is pointing out your blind loyality to everything EADS is best and everything Boeing is junk. Even I, a staunch Boeing suppo
76 Revelation : What is internationally humiliating and remarkably unsuccessful is UN peace-keeping. As a Dutchman, I would have thought you were quite familiar with
77 keesje : I keep being surprized about the folks claiming they have / will have the C-17 so.. or they have the C130J so.. What are the RAF thinking they are do
78 Revelation : Preserving jobs in Filton for both A400M and A350. Without EADS's direct threats about them, I think the UK would have walked away from the A400M two
79 connies4ever : Well, from my p.o.v., I believe UH60's opinions carry more weight on tis board than yours, and, yes, for this particular thread he does represent a m
80 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : I never said the majority, I said "a lot of us", please do not misrepresent my words. And if you had been paying any attention to the discussion at h
81 Revelation : It's kind of funny how in some people's eyes the C-130J is being outgrown by physical requirements yet also under direct threat from C-390, which is
82 kanban : at their production rate it would take 40 years to produce 1292 (1100 projected plus the graphs 192 firm) aircraft... The 400 in North America must b
83 Revelation : And the 50 for Europe is the Netherlands finally stepping up to the plate.
84 keesje : And so do the "Great Brits" ? The A400M fits in nicely between the existing 20t and bigger 80t and higher transports. At least EADS has to pay part o
85 KC135TopBoom : Have you read the UK is planning to retire their C-130Js by 2022. Isn't that the time they get their first A-400? LOL Here you go..........again. Ref
86 keesje : FYI we'll keep sharing capacity with Belgium. (KDC10, C-130, A400Ms later on) and NATO SAC (C-17). On a ad hoc basis capacity is hired from other wes
87 kanban : If the US needs a couple for a specific mission, we'll rent them from the Brits and Germans... That makes good economic sense, but don't hold your br
88 KC135TopBoom : The RNAF (KLu) has for their tanker/transport fleet; 2 X KDC-10 1 X DC-10 4 X C-130H-30 2 X C-130H (converted former USN EC-130Q) 1 X G-IV (VIP trans
89 Revelation : I can't see any evidence that Boeing blackmailed Congress. I do see congress adding C-17s the USAF didn't request, but that could just as easily be d
90 Galaxy5007 : I have to jump on this...Where is this blackmail evidence for one. The USAF wanted the C-17 in the 90s mind you...it was to replace the aging C-141 f
91 Post contains links and images keesje : List of C130 operators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_operators Add the Illyushing and Antonov operators, look at the a
92 Revelation : So, in modest terms, EUR 25B / 170 frames gives you 147M Euro / frame or $205M / frame. What commander who wants to keep his job is going to have flo
93 kanban : [quote=keesje,reply=91] I'm sorry but you are beating a dead horse... and way off topic which is about more cuts potentially coming ... not about sell
94 Post contains links keesje : It seems like you have just no idea of the transformation the European armed forces are going through.. Traditional task such as stopping massive att
95 Revelation : Right, but what are the odds that it will actually be used to any significant degree on actual unprepared fields? Unless it's an extremely urgent mis
96 Galaxy5007 : LMAO! I agree with you completely. C-17s land on semi-prepared airfields mind you. I've seen C-130s land on unprepared areas before; and thats usuall
97 XT6Wagon : The USAF has spent a huge amount of money developing methods to deploy tanks and equipment from transport into unimproved fields without the need for
98 KC135TopBoom : So Keesje, tell us why Malaysa got such a good deal EADS wasn't willing to give to its owner countries? Why couldn't EADS make South Africa the same
99 Post contains images Revelation : Those videos can't possibly be anything more than its first preliminary tests, otherwise it's idea of unprepared field capability is a total joke.
100 Post contains links kanban : I am very aware of the changes in European Armed Forces, especially the fact that the governments are running ow on money and are rethinking their ro
101 328JET : Hmmm, it is a little bit like saying the F16 is more successful than the F35... One aircraft is already in daily service since several years and the
102 Post contains images keesje : ? Maybe it has to do with the fact there 20 yrs between the aircraft ? ? 1100 is the market until 2025 (reply 72) ? ? Of course they are preliminairy
103 UH60FtRucker : Well unlike you, who has no experience outside of the salesroom, I've been a unit movement officer. First, we do not airlift helicopters, at least no
104 keesje : Moving helicopters is a key requirement for the A400M. A Puma / NH90 / Tiger fits in. The previous generation of European transport aircraft could no
105 UH60FtRucker : Well considering that the US does not own any of those helicopters... and considering how we are directly talking about the possibility - or lack the
106 328JET : I highly doubt that. I see around 100 A400Ms flying for the USAF in the next decades as a bigger C130 replacement.
107 UH60FtRucker : I'm totally okay with you and Keesje disagreeing with me. But if you think that the political will is there, then you both have to at least provide S
108 328JET : I expect a gentleman agreement between europe and the US. Boeing will get all or most of the tanker deal and EADS will get a nice order boost for the
109 Post contains links JoeCanuck : From another thread; A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations (by Revelation Mar 16 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) 168 x 1.4 = $235,200,00
110 328JET : I have corrected that calculation in the other thread.
111 JoeCanuck : Actually, you didn't. 1 euro = 1.4 dollars, not 1 dollar. That means to convert dollars to Euros, you multiply by 1.4. I simply used Keesje's Euro pr
112 328JET : Normally your calculation would be absolutely right. But the mentioned 168 Mio Euros are for sales within europe, not for exports. For exports, Airbu
113 XT6Wagon : We will NEVER have the A400M in the USAF as long as it costs more than 1/2 what a C17 costs. It just flat does not make sense to spend roughly the sam
114 JoeCanuck : Really...? Then why sell it at that price...? That seems like a bad way to do business to me...overcharge the people bankrolling the program to lose
115 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : Is that true?! EADS is really willing to stick it to their native countries in that manner? "Hey guys, I know we quoted the Americans X price, but we
116 328JET : This is a very common procedure in business to get into a market. Very often used by german producers of cars... (slightly off-topic...) We germans p
117 Post contains images Galaxy5007 : I like the ideaology of someone bandwagoning the A400M for the USAF when Boeing is sitting here trying to keep their line going with the C-17. I'm sor
118 SA7700 : As this thread has been steered into an off-topic debate with insults and rhetoric being hurled around, by the same select few members; this thread wi
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...
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
Air Force One Fly-by Or Go-Around? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 09:07:30 by Reggaebird
Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10? posted Thu Jul 8 2010 06:58:19 by KC135TopBoom
"By Americans, For Americans" Claim On Eads Web posted Thu Jun 10 2010 10:56:14 by eksath
The End Of Eads Monopoly In Germany? posted Thu May 6 2010 02:20:39 by columba
Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid posted Tue Apr 20 2010 14:57:35 by Yazoo
Michelle Obama Coming To SAN Today posted Thu Apr 15 2010 08:56:05 by dl767captain
EADS/NA Considers Tanker Bid - Requests Extension posted Fri Mar 19 2010 08:31:48 by tugger
Eads Receives KC-30 Civil Type Certification posted Thu Mar 18 2010 05:47:23 by zeke
STS-131 Coming Up! posted Mon Mar 15 2010 00:20:11 by ProPilot83