moderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 459 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11279 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
This thread is for the discussion of all non-flight test related matters in regards to the A400M. If you wish to discuss the A400M test flights, please use the dedicated thread that has been established for the discussion of that topic:
Please keep the discussions on topic as well as within the Forum Rules. If you see a post that you feel violates the Forum Rules, please suggest deletion on it as soon as possible so the Moderators are not forced to lock a thread due to the amount of posts that would need to be removed.
Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11156 times:
You are describing short-term issues.
During the useful life of the A400M program (and particularly after the time the first production slots will become available for outside customers), the world and the economic situation will most probably undergo major shifts and developments anyway.
Nobody expects the DoD to plunk a mountain of cash on the table today for a bunch of A400Ms.
Within the coming decades, however, things can and will develop further. I don't think anybody can really make sound predictions across that whole period where the A400M will be on offer.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 11148 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): Nobody expects the DoD to plunk a mountain of cash on the table today for a bunch of A400Ms.
Within the coming decades, however, things can and will develop further. I don't think anybody can really make sound predictions across that whole period where the A400M will be on offer.
...That's assuming that the United States will ever try to return to an ambitious global expeditionary role, which is debatable. Look at many western European nations, over the past few decades, they've essentially made themselves irrelevant on the global stage. And what effective 'muscle' that they retain is contingent on a NATO/US involvement. But now the US will be asking themselves the same question: why should we be spending so much on defense? Why do we need such a large military?
And the fact remains that the US is likely to repeat the wilderness years of post-Viet Nam. However, this time the situation is even more dire, considering the massive economic and social crises we face. Because when we stop and take an objective look at the financial budget crisis, one of two things has to occur: 1.) "bankruptcy" and defaulting on our debt. 2.) Massive budget cuts, which the military would be the "easiest" to achieve.
And even more importantly... lets just say the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the US to purchase the A400M suddenly materializes. That still does not address the question of whether or not the need for the aircraft will still exist. I don't think any of us deny that the US will be undergoing a sharp contraction of global military commitments. The appetite for war and overseas adventures has evaporated.
...Hell isn't that exactly what so many in Europe wanted!? - A contraction of US military power, and a greater hesitation to rush into war? It's funny that some of you suddenly change your tune, when you want the US to buy some of your equipment.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 11147 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): You are describing short-term issues.
A question I would then ask is why is no one getting on the EU nations for being short sighted and actually reducing their numbers, stalled for months on funding developments and not stating their intention to increase their numbers.
These are actual moves being taken by the nations who are designing and building the a/c, so far the US is not involved, all we have are opinions of Americans and their supporters on this site, their short sights pales in comparion to the actual actions being taken in Europe.
One may start to get the impression from reading all the A400M threads that the success or failure of the a/c is with the US government and its military services.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 11136 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 6): A question I would then ask is why is no one getting on the EU nations for being short sighted and actually reducing their numbers, stalled for months on funding developments and not stating their intention to increase their numbers.
That's a great point.
And I think the logical answer is simple: their citizenry is asking a fair question -- during this time of mounting financial and social pressures, can we really afford to committing ourselves to other people's wars??
And the US is starting to ask themselves the same question. And as the drum beat for budget cuts continue to grow louder, the $700billion DoD budget is a tempting target. The individual branches are being asked to provide a No-Shit List of what they absolutely cannot do without to meet their basic mission. No one has yet to make a convincing case that the A400M is a must have. And that without it, the USAF's ability to meet mission is significantly degraded. Until they can do that, the idea of the US purchasing the A400M is a pipe dream.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2459 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 11129 times:
The current US Armed Forces reduction will probably continue for 10 years and then stay level for the next 10 years or longer as the recovery is very slow. When they have budget to spend on new hardware, I doubt that the first things they will look at are additional air transports.
The next thing I believe we'll be hearing is several European countries will want to decelerate their A400 deliveries. They will keep the numbers but stretch the deliveries over another 5 or so years.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10955 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Nobody expects the DoD to plunk a mountain of cash on the table today for a bunch of A400Ms.
Within the coming decades, however, things can and will develop further. I don't think anybody can really make sound predictions across that whole period where the A400M will be on offer.
...That's assuming that the United States will ever try to return to an ambitious global expeditionary role, which is debatable.
I'm not even debating that here. I'm simply pointing towards the difficulty of predicting the future that far in advance.
The A400M is about to become an available resource. How exactly the corresponding needs will develop is to be seen, but the program will be available for decades to come. That's it.
Actual procurement with all its political ramifications will heavily depend on the way the military, economical and political situation at the time. And my point is simply that there are many known and unknown unknowns on that path.
That's it. No reason to get excited, really!
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): Look at many western European nations, over the past few decades, they've essentially made themselves irrelevant on the global stage.
Since WWII european countries have not really played a global role any more, and I would say in case of Germany the last times we've had a "global role" didn't go so well...
In recent decades most of our militaries have been undergoing a major change from cannon fodder in WWIII, slightly buffering the first impact of a soviet invasion towards a multi-purpose force with trans-regional deployability. That is a fundamental overhaul.
You're massively oversimplifying both the quantitave and the qualitative developments in that regard.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): And even more importantly... lets just say the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the US to purchase the A400M suddenly materializes. That still does not address the question of whether or not the need for the aircraft will still exist. I don't think any of us deny that the US will be undergoing a sharp contraction of global military commitments. The appetite for war and overseas adventures has evaporated.
We know how quickly such things can change.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): ...Hell isn't that exactly what so many in Europe wanted!? - A contraction of US military power, and a greater hesitation to rush into war? It's funny that some of you suddenly change your tune, when you want the US to buy some of your equipment.
Sorry, but that is really beneath you. You've already exposed the fact that you are capable of insightful, differentiated consideration of complex topics. It's too late to camouflage yourself now as a jingoistic troglodyte with the knee-jerk as the highest brain function.
Seriously: Most military endeavours scale both with quantity of material and the intelligence of the strategic and tactical use of that material.
The Iraq war was a completely harebrained blunder, based on nothing but misconceived ideology and riddled with unrealistic assumptions all around, in the process severely damaging the necessary Afghanistan campaign. That is why it has been criticized.
Wanting to reduce US military power would only look like an attractive prospect if one assumed that the political and military intelligence behind that power was a completely lost cause, basically as a desperate last resort: If you can't secure a loose cannon, the last resort would be to hope that at least its ammunition ran out.
The absolutely primary request has always been to think more realistically about when and how to use the military forces available.
It really is a defensive knee-jerk reaction to completely ignore and deflect the calls for more intelligent use and instead pretend that everyone was just out to weaken or destroy your forces. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I think you do really know that.
Quoting par13del (Reply 6): A question I would then ask is why is no one getting on the EU nations for being short sighted and actually reducing their numbers, stalled for months on funding developments and not stating their intention to increase their numbers.
The member nations do see this program through. Squabbling about details like the initial order volume (which can and will be further modified up or down in the coming years anyway) is small fry by comparison.
The US DoD is not a customer for the A400M at this point and may never be. But anyone who's incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead should just not be working in aviation management.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10930 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): But anyone who's incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead should just not be working in aviation management
Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): Actual procurement with all its political ramifications will heavily depend on the way the military, economical and political situation at the time. And my point is simply that there are many known and unknown unknowns on that path.
As mentioned, the US was struggling to continue a line for a very successful a/c - C17 - which is proven in the field, one of the options the Europeans could have looked at was to acquire C-17's even build them under license, instead they chose national development over trade and designed and built their own, in this case political considerations trump the military. Such was the decision made decades ago to preserve aviation knowledge in Europe, no one questions the results of that decision.
If this options works out for the Europeans, in 10 - 20 years time when the US is looking at replacing their C-17's and C-130's, they will be able to look across the pond and learn from their experience by viewing the final results, as it relates to the A400M, it will be a mature and proven platform a mirror of the C-17 at this point in time.
The big question is will the politics be any different.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10443 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10927 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
And even more importantly... lets just say the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the US to purchase the A400M suddenly materializes. That still does not address the question of whether or not the need for the aircraft will still exist. I don't think any of us deny that the US will be undergoing a sharp contraction of global military commitments. The appetite for war and overseas adventures has evaporated.
We know how quickly such things can change.
In what direction?
The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined.
How long do you expect that to continue?
Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): But anyone who's incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead should just not be working in aviation management.
One could equally say that someone who justifies A400M's continuance in spite of EADS's admitted incompetence and allows for the huge overruns in time and money based on PERHAPS someone coming along PERHAPS decades from now and bailing the program out also should just not be working in aviation management.
IMHO, your comment is amongst the most arrogant and self serving I've ever seen here on a.net. Just because someone sees the future differently than you do, does not mean they are "incapable of considering potential developments through decades ahead". And to then go on to say that person "should just not be working in aviation management" is the height of arrogance, IMHO.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2459 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10827 times:
can we quit squabbling like a bunch of children (you said/no I didn't).. some days if I had the resources I'd round all of you up and put you in a closed room with nerf sticks until ....?
Zeke, do you have a link to the whole presentation that the graph from hades came from... ? I think that might end some of the assumptions.
basically though, the A400 fits some potential air transport needs for a mid capacity a/c... but the marketplace seems to be reacting with more options than were envisioned when this project started. So experts out there who are the potential new customers? what do the have today (in place or on order)?
with the potential weight growth of the transportable ground vehicles will that change the picture? (one thing I've noted is this need to strip them down for shipping weight, and re assemble at the destination.. that seems to imply that they will not be doing live drops in the middle of a combat theater where the troops roll out the door with guns blazing... )
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10744 times:
A quick reminder:
Quoting moderators (Thread starter): Please keep the discussions on topic as well as within the Forum Rules. If you see a post that you feel violates the Forum Rules, please suggest deletion on it as soon as possible so the Moderators are not forced to lock a thread due to the amount of posts that would need to be removed.
This is the only warning that will be given in regards to off-topic posts. If this thread goes off-topic, it will be locked.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3128 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10694 times:
So who in north america is going to buy 400 units if not the USAF? COME ON. This has to be the wrost excuse given for EADS crack smoking in thier market forcasts. Canada doesn't need 400 of anything that flys, and CAN'T buy the A400M even if it did. So lets look at the next nation that could order it in NA. Mexico. What the hell are they going to do with 400 A400M? Where are they going to get the money? C130 are cheap and even that I doubt will see many sales to replace current frames that become unservicable. Certainly not going to hit 400 selling handfuls to the other small nations in north america, even if they would buy anything that expensive. Look at the trouble that South Africa has with its order... and its a nation with large defense budget, and pretentions to exerting that power outside its own border if required. Mexico and the rest in central america don't exactly match them in size of budget or attempts to justify it with power projection.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10676 times:
To play devils advocate, they said "No USAF penetration", maybe they mean cargo carriers in North America will start using larger props - A400M - to save fuel cost versus jets like the 757, A300, etc?
Well I wouldn't even consider Mexico in that category. Because if you look at the graph, there is a column for Latin America. Since they made that distinction in categories, I would assume that North America = USA and Canada.
Anyway the disclaimer is that they forecast 400 A400M type. However, I still maintain that the money simply isn't there. As I stated, we're going into another wilderness period, where we won't see major upgrades or purchases. We're tightening the belt.
Galaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10634 times:
No Offense to anyone; but this seems to be a repeat of the last thread...same chart, same discussion...Why (again) are people (keesje in particular) keep bringing old topics back up when everyone is pretty much in agreement that hes wrong in many aspects.
TopBoom; just to clairify, 206 C-17s have been delivered to the USAF to be exact. Im not sure why, but the last serial ends at P-222.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 10613 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 35): No Offense to anyone; but this seems to be a repeat of the last thread...same chart, same discussion...Why (again) are people (keesje in particular) keep bringing old topics back up when everyone is pretty much in agreement that hes wrong in many aspects.
You are perfectly within your rights to see it that way, as he is in the opposite direction.
I can just as much consider the question to remain open through years and possibly decades to come.
When you're looking at the history of sure bets, there haven't really been that many in hindsight, particularly in the military field.
At this point the A400 looks to be in decent shape with regards to its actual performance, horribly out of time and over budget (not uncommon for this kind of project) and with neither opportunity nor demand for selling any of the far-away open slots in its production run.
Anyone can stir his own tea leaves any way he wants, but at that level of theoretical speculation, are they really worth getting excited about?
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7722 posts, RR: 73 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10559 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 29): Zeke, do you have a link to the whole presentation that the graph from hades came from... ? I think that might end some of the assumptions.
Sure, it is not hidden, it was presented in 2008 to investors, it is available for anyone to view on the EADS site.
You will see from the presentation that they did not assumed to pickup any A400M orders in North America, it assumes zero penetration in the USAF, if they do it will be a bonus.
What seems to be misunderstood, the market forecast suggests that 400 mid size transports will come up for replacement or renewal by 2025 in North America. I do not think that number is unreasonable given the size and age of mid size transport fleets. However EADS in their presentation removed those aircraft from their potential market size, this is being conservative.
This would be no different to EADS presenting a graph with the worldwide fleet of mid sized wide bodies, IL-96, 767, A330, A340, 777, and then to come up and say they expect 3000 of them need replacement by 2035. 2000 of them outside of the USA, and they expect to capture 1000 of those sales with the A330/A350. It would then follow they would expect the 787/777 to capture 2000 sales, 1000 from North America, and 1000 from the rest of the world.
The presentation is basically saying that they are looking at getting 45% of the market share (600/1300) with the A400M, with aircraft like the C-130/AN-70/C-17 taking up the remaining 65% (700/1300).
Clearly the A400M is in the mid size transport market, looking at the other aircraft in the market segment it was compared to C-130s, C-160, AN-12, and IL-76/78. The A400M will easily do the role of those aircraft and then some, with modern oversized loads.
The A400M comes in at different pricing levels, depending on what bells and whistles (capabilities) a customer wants installed. Often on here people deliberately choose to use the most expensive A400M price they can find with the highest capabilities, and then the cheapest price available they can find from the competition without making any acknowledgement for the capability differences. Sure a 767 is cheaper than a 777, so is a C-130 cheaper than A400M, but in both cases they have different capabilities.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10509 times:
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 35): TopBoom; just to clairify, 206 C-17s have been delivered to the USAF to be exact.
Thanks, I was close when I said "around 210".
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 35): Im not sure why, but the last serial ends at P-222.
I don't remember the USAF tail numbers, but the first test flight C-17A (FY-1989 or FY-1990) was MD number T-1, and it was joined 5 other aircraft in the flight test program, numbers P-1 through P-5 (all also MD). So T-1 plus P-1 to P-222 (MD until FY-1997 and B from FY-1998 to the FY-2010 airplanes) equils the entire production of 223 C-17s for the USAF.
bj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 444 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10390 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 37): You will see from the presentation that they did not assumed to pickup any A400M orders in North America, it assumes zero penetration in the USAF, if they do it will be a bonus.
That seems very realistic. The US produces several transport aircraft themselves so why would they order European if they can get something American that will do pretty much the same, it's basic politics.
On the other hand if the tanker order falls through for Airbus (which is what my money is on) then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2459 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 10235 times:
Quoting bj87 (Reply 40): then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.
don't count on it.... if they are feeling generous, they'll find something that's really needed....
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10199 times:
Quoting bj87 (Reply 40): On the other hand if the tanker order falls through for Airbus (which is what my money is on) then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.
As we saying that products are purchased for reasons other than their capabilities?
Say it aint so, please
Such sentiment if it ever happens may work against the A400M, if the Airbus tanker is selected a second time, the US government may feel they have to give something to Boeing for all their effort also, the only thing on the playing field right now is more C-17's so it could be a case of dammed if you do dammed if you don't. Add the increased cargo capabilities of the tanker with additional C-17's bought and the cargo capabilities of the US will be overflowing for a number of decades to come, even if the C-130's are retired they still may have excess capabilities, the number of places a C-130 can go that an A400M / C-17 and KC-30 cannot is not that large.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10148 times:
Quoting bj87 (Reply 40): On the other hand if the tanker order falls through for Airbus (which is what my money is on) then they might order some A400's as a good will gesture for putting Airbus through all the effort for nothing.
After the tanker deal, or should I say if there is a tanker deal (every program is on the chopping block), I doubt there will be money to do that.
I just cannot see Congress going along buying European built airplanes that are not needed by the US after the DOD cancels some military programs that have some level of need.
You will see from the presentation that they did not assumed to pickup any A400M orders in North America, it assumes zero penetration in the USAF, if they do it will be a bonus.
Many thanks Zeke for providing us with clarity over the 400 A400M issue in North America. So this argument can be put to rest. .
25 Galaxy5007: Actually, They aren't counting T-1 as part as the 223 ordered, since T-1 was never to enter service; it always has been and will be a test aircraft.
26 Revelation: It would seem a lot of the controversy could have been avoided by presenting the chart on page 16 instead of the one on page 14. Even though IMHO tha
27 KC135TopBoom: It is academic anyway. The USAF will not get the money to buy the A-400 even if they wanted them.
28 328JET: Do not be so sure. If EADS decides to produce them in the U.S. like they planned with the KC45A, then they would get the money.
29 DiamondFlyer: Not a chance. Look at the number of F-22's that were initially ordered, and how many were delivered. Look at the mess the F-35 development is. Look a
30 Klaus: Well, there are differences: The F-22 and F-35 are clean-sheet designs fully funded by the DoD with development time and cost spiraling out of contro
31 KC135TopBoom: Correct, the DOD is looking at future cuts in the neighborhood of $100B + just for the next 5 years, most of that comiong from developement and porcu
32 Klaus: No doubt, cost would certainly be a factor.
33 zeke: Seems to be an existing captive market for civil certified medium sized transports that the A400M could fill.
34 BMI727: Yes, but I can't imagine that those companies could absorb the type of capital expenses buying A400Ms would incur. Airbus would have to put the A400M
35 tugger: Well, there's you problem! Airbus is projecting a market space of 110%. (45% + 65% = 110%). No wonder sales are falling short.... Of course that's al
36 328JET: A think the price was MDDs biggest, if not the only, mistake when they offered the MD 17 to the customers. (Lufthansa Cargo got a nice and impressive
37 Klaus: Zeke apparently made a minor mistake calculating the percentages – the absolute numbers do match. Of course entirely contrary to any private enterp
39 rheinwaldner: I have a question about the capability of the flight envelope protection: Would the C-17 crash last year have happened with a A400M as well? This is t
40 KC135TopBoom: The size of the safe flight envelope of the airplanes that crashed during practice is not what has been questioned by any of the accident investigati
41 Klaus: I guess you would have wanted to rephrase that. If the A400 can be flown safely beyond the limits of the C-17, the A400 will still be safe. Airbus is
42 rheinwaldner: Of course ... but the aircraft will always do that within the valid flight envelope A perfectly valid flight vector can still hit an obstacle. But th
43 Klaus: At least now that they've canceled automatic terrain following – it could have taken care of that as well!
44 zeke: I do not think so. I do not think an A400M would have stalled in that attitude. The low speed flight performance/lift generation, and roll control ar
45 rheinwaldner: When pulling the stick fully? At low bank angles the stick for vertical g-control can be left in neutral position and the aircraft never leaves level
46 zeke: There is an assumption made by many that then A400M has the same FBW limits as the other FBW Airbus types, this is incorrect. The bank angle limit in
47 KC135TopBoom: I thought in the A-400 FBW design/programming the pilot had the authority to exceed airplane limitations, if needed. Is that not the case? Also rememb
48 mffoda: Update from AW... http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...y%20To%20Take%20Only%2040%20A400Ms "The Bundestag’s budget committee is expected to follow
49 KC135TopBoom: Yeah, I just read the aviation week story too. It seems these remarketed German A-400s will bring in funds to Germany, and not as much for EADS. Also
50 Revelation: Politics sucks! So in essence DE is funding EADS to build 13 white tails. It's funny how this comes out after the final contracts are signed, not whe
51 KC135TopBoom: I don't know if international military contract protests can be filed with the WTO. A few things can happen here. 1. EADS stores these 13 German airc
52 Shmertspionem: The WTO specifically excludes military contracts from its scope EXCEPT when such exclusions are disguised civil subsidies Annex 4: Plurilateral Trade
53 328JET: That is an interesting and much appreciated development! Germany repeats the history of the Transall - of which the sold some aircrafts to turkey! May
54 kanban: next week Great Britain and France will announce a similar deal and the market will have a glut of A400 built, paid for and never delivered.
55 Klaus: No, as far as I'm aware Germany will in fact buy these 13 aircraft as agreed upon, but then sell them through to somebody else.
56 Revelation: Maybe the USAF should take some of those extra C-17s that Congress ordered for them and put them on eBay? Then use the funds to buy four CFM-56s for e
57 KC135TopBoom: I'll bet the British are keeping an eye on this deal. Now there's an idea.
58 Revelation: That's why I said 'in essence'. A true white tail is an aircraft built either on pure speculation or after an order cancellation that the manufacture
59 328JET: That is a wrong statement. Our country CAN afford to buy these 53 A400Ms, but the whole "Bundeswehr" structure is completely changed in the moment to
60 breiz: The German Parliament did confirm the purchase of the 53 A400M yesterday:
61 Klaus: Okay. One thing to be noted, however, is that production slots for these "surplus" frames are still rather far away – it is quite possible that the
62 Revelation: Then why didn't your country buy the original 60 and resell 20? Answer: cost. I haven't heard of this restructuring argument in the last year or two
63 Klaus: You have to know that the main driving force behind this is the junior coalition partner FDP (econo-liberal party) who had tax breaks (meaning: for t
64 par13del: Do you envision Germany still being in Afghanistan by the time the A400M reaches operational status and frames get delivered to the German Air Force?
65 Klaus: I wouldn't be surprised at all. And even if not, Germany is completely surrounded by EU partners plus Switzerland by now – our military automatical
66 Revelation: Thanks for your explanation of the political situation, Klaus. Yes, but if that is so, it was just as much in flux as this current contract was being
67 Klaus: Can you still remember how different the world had looked to most people (and governments!) before the banking crash near-instantly ripped gigantic h
68 Revelation: That hole was already wide open as the contract just signed was being negotiated this winter. Absolutely? Such language... Anyhow, it said: And if yo
69 Klaus: Coalition dynamics have been escalating further since then. And the original order (on which the planning with Airbus was ultimately based) originate
70 KC135TopBoom: Isn't Germany actually paying for these 13 airframes, then selling them before delivery? Does Germany already have a customer for them? Someone who m
71 Klaus: That seems to be the plan. I doubt that. The decision is only a few hours old. Highly unlikely, I would say. That really sounds like a creative idea.
72 Revelation: Klaus, please re-read carefully what 328JET wrote in reply 59: And re-read what I've written: It is 328JET that vehimently stated that DE could affor
73 Klaus: You drew a conclusion which is simply not there. Neither you nor 328JET have provided any cause for concluding that deficiencies in the A400M's perfo
74 Shmertspionem: Maybe it does but there is also another explanation for it.... a) that Germany doesn't want a big international role or (highly unlikely since they w
75 328JET: To summarize for some people: Germany is reducing the number of A400Ms not to save money, but to be able to spend this "saved" money on other programs
76 Shmertspionem: This is not to be The Bundestag today voted to END THE AFGHAN MISSION BY 2014 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/eu...y.troops.mandate/index.html?hpt=
77 kanban: I like that note.. since they both cost about the same it's a 1 for 1 swap... providing someone buys the excess A400's... but who.. Mexican or Colomb
78 Klaus: It's not that simple, yet again. The crucial stipulation is: "...if the situation in Afghanistan permits it".
79 328JET: They do not cost the same. That is an a.net myth. Otherwise you would hardly see that the UK will operate both of them...
80 Revelation: Again you show you just aren't reading. I did not make a claim, all I said is IF what was being claimed is true, then the market would draw a certain
81 Klaus: And that connection you're making appears utterly nonsensical to me, since there is absolutely no plausible connection between the actual decision an
82 KC135TopBoom: I wonder how closely the German plan to sell 13 A-400s is being watched in the UK? They seem to have the most radical reductions in defense spending t
83 Revelation: Happy 6th A.net birthday, KC135TopBoom! Yes, after their decision to sell off one third of their Typhoon fleet because they didn't want to pay to upg
84 kanban: the question in my mind remains who will Germany and Britain sell them to???? I see the French maybe selling to their colonies (sort of like the US p
86 328JET: Dream on... The UK has already decided to withdraw its C130J fleet after they got all their A400Ms.
87 KC135TopBoom: In the past, they had decided to take all their planned Typhoons, F-111Ks, only lease the C-17s, etc. Germany, at one time was the A-400s biggest sin
88 par13del: Well, they scrapped their latest Nimrod before deployment, are building 2 carriers and are mothballing one of them soon after deployment, mothballed
89 328JET: They just did the same with the harrier and will do the same with the Tornado. Both will be replaced by the JSF. It is not required, as germany will
90 KC135TopBoom: Why? Those military items that cannot be carried by the C-130J can fit into the C-17, and the same can be said for the A-400. The C-130J and -J-30 ar
91 328JET: The RAF seems to have a different opinion than you have. Otherwise they would not replace their Tornado and Harrier with JSFs and their C130J with A4
92 kanban: They may be wanting to rethink the JSF purchase as well and retain the the older planes.. JSF is starting to be a questionable advance and a very hig
93 Revelation: I bet not, since no one wanted to venture a guess before these remarketed frames were going to be available. It sounds like it's all politics. The go
94 kanban: Can they be modified into water tankers for fighting forest fires? Europe seems to suck equipment from everywhere in recent summer fire seasons...
95 328JET: Hey i did already! I mentioned turkey as customer in addition to their own ordered birds. But, i have another option: Qatar Germany and Qatar have st
96 DEVILFISH: They better hurry and make up their minds, as Japan might just up and decide to sell their C-2 on the export market..... http://www.flightglobal.com/
97 kanban: sorry missed it.. wouldn't want to slight anyone.
98 KC135TopBoom: I did too. Another possibility would be the CIA. Then they can fly around the world and look like an EU airplane instead of an American airplane.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 459 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7722 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 444 posts, 
.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
