wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:52 pm

Part 2 is getting somehow long, so here part 3.

Just if anybody needs to find part 2, here it is:
A400M Three Years Late? Part 2 (by WILCO737 Mar 10 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Enjoy.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:50 pm

I'll start. In the last thread (Part 2) I noted this Reuters article in which was alleged that the Luftwaffe would not receive their first A400M before 2014.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...UtilitiesNews/idUSLL03534920090621

This article noted Lockheed Martin's willingness to lease C-130Js for five to seven years.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/19/lockheed-lovin-the-a400m-blues/

Here is a good overview from Defense News.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4149915&c=FEA&s=CVS

Quote:
For the French side, there are four vital factors in reviewing the A400M: price, performance, delivery date and production rate.

The purchase price is rising, which means the French authorities are looking at alternative aircraft, notably the C-130J. The delay has piled up questions: Is the A400M correctly priced considering its capabilities in airlift, range and other parameters? Just how much confidence can be placed on the time scale? The French Air Force has said it wants the plane no later than late 2013 or early 2014 and is looking at forming a squadron of C-130Js as its gap filler.

C-130J Lease?

Collet-Billon said he would recommend a 10-15 C-130J lease but not a buy to Defense Minister Hervé Morin. A lease with option to buy was also a possibility. "We shall see, it must be attractive," he said.

"The most important thing probably is that we must have great confidence in the time scale. We cannot wait too long for this aircraft," he said.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
columba
Posts: 5044
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:20 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
Luftwaffe would not receive their first A400M before 2014.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...UtilitiesNews/idUSLL03534920090621

This article noted Lockheed Martin's willingness to lease C-130Js for five to seven years.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/19/lockheed-lovin-the-a400m-blues/

Any idea what version they are interested, if would hope that they go for the stretched
C130J-30.

I do hope Germany follows France example and will lease 10-15 C130Js.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
bennett123
Posts: 7437
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:23 pm

This is surely LM's opportunity to bury this turkey.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:50 pm

I didn't want to comment any more on part 2, it was just too long. Good news for LM, bad news for EADS.

The questions remain, what is EADS doing about the 7 tonnes, or so overweight issue, and when will they solve the engine issues?
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:45 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
I didn't want to comment any more on part 2, it was just too long. Good news for LM, bad news for EADS.

The questions remain, what is EADS doing about the 7 tonnes, or so overweight issue, and when will they solve the engine issues?

Maybe you should read #2. It seems some folks got a bit over enthousiastic on the issues. The engines work fine, software paperwork had to be redone. EADS says they see no real issue meeting payload range requirements. High OEW is for the first few prototypes.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):

This is surely LM's opportunity to bury this turkey.

Yes they just have to shrink the loads  Yeah sure



Seriously I think LM and or Boeing have to come up with something better. The C-17 and C130-J are old school & don't fit the requirements.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
trex8
Posts: 4598
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:23 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
and when will they solve the engine issues?

I can't recall where I saw it, either AWSTs or FIs Paris show special, but the engine problems were apparently an administrative goofup where they could not certify the software so it seems a bunch of people had to go through the whole software again to allow the proper paper certification!! that has now been taken care of.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:56 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):
This is surely LM's opportunity to bury this turkey.

The A400M isn't going to be buried by a long shot. There's national pride and European aircraft producer(s) reputations at stake. I suspect the A400M and 787 have something in common. Both have been through a tough pre-production period but once they're in service, the wait will have been worth it.

The problems in the aviation industry today are magnified in a way they never would have been some 50 years ago. The media touches and influences everything. Word travels a lot faster via e-mail and internet communications of one form or another and it takes far less time to take something small and blow it all out of proportion.

Let's give the airplane a chance to demonstrate what it can do once it gets into the flight test stage.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:57 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6):

I can't recall where I saw it, either AWSTs or FIs Paris show special, but the engine problems were apparently an administrative goofup where they could not certify the software so it seems a bunch of people had to go through the whole software again to allow the proper paper certification!! that has now been taken care of.

*IF* you believe that.. but apparently now the engine is waiting on the frame to do ground testing, so where's the truth in this whole mess.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
I suspect the A400M and 787 have something in common. Both have been through a tough pre-production period but once they're in service, the wait will have been worth it.

As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:45 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).

 Confused Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:07 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
I suspect the A400M and 787 have something in common. Both have been through a tough pre-production period

Don't forget to mention the A-380, which, even today is having PRODUCTION problems.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
The problems in the aviation industry today are magnified in a way they never would have been some 50 years ago.

Perhaps, but the B-29 engine and engine fire problems were widly known in 1943 (during WWII). The pre-production problems of the H-1 (Spruce Goose) came out during Congressional Hearings in late 1945.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).

Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?

It will be a lot easier to term the overweight issues of the B-787 (OEW suppose to be about 242,000 lbs) vs. triming weight off the A-400M (OEM suppose to be 154,000 lbs). That 7 tonnes (15,400 lbs) overweight for the A-400M is about 10% of the OEM. The B-787 is only about 5,000 lbs (2.2 tonnes) overweight, or about 2%.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:19 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):

Confused Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

It will be a lot easier to term the overweight issues of the B-787 (OEW suppose to be about 242,000 lbs) vs. triming weight off the A-400M (OEM suppose to be 154,000 lbs). That 7 tonnes (15,400 lbs) overweight for the A-400M is about 10% of the OEM. The B-787 is only about 5,000 lbs (2.2 tonnes) overweight, or about 2%.

Thanks KC135.

Keesje, seeing as none of us have concrete figures and can only go by what the press reports the 400M is a bit more over weight than the 787, with a supposedly reduced functional profile (whereas the 787 will still fulfill it's original functional requirements). Plus the 400M is 'later' depending on which delivery date you use as the first delivery date. Neither program has done well, but the list of screw-ups (in terms of delays) is probably:

748 < 380 < 787 < 400M

Clearly neither manufacturer has done a great job of late, but at the very least the 787 has some hope in sight of finally taking to the skies, while the 400M continues with a game of finger pointing.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:03 pm

The first 6x 787s will probably be 8% overweight. Nobody wants them anymore.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ng-confirms-787-weight-issues.html

Similar the first A400Ms will be overweight, weight reduction are identifed and the Airbus militairy boss says he believes the A400M will meet / exceed requirements later on.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...9/327465/a400m-rescue-mission.html

Comparing initial A400M OEWs with hoped for final 787 OEW's is incorrect.

Comparing final OEW between a passenger and militairy transport long before the first prototype has even flown is questionable anyway.

Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:42 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
a decoy is necessary.

Let's get "decoy-ing" then....
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4149915&c=FEA&s=CVS

Quote:
Airbus was supposed to have delivered its first airplanes to France this year, but instead has said deliveries will be at least three years late because of problems with its turboshaft engines and because the aircraft is at least 7 tons overweight.

Some sources also hint at other problems, including aerodynamic issues stemming from the design of its tail, a notion rejected by Airbus Military CEO Domingo Ureña.

"some sources"? "aerodynamic issues"?
Decoys?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:02 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The first 6x 787s will probably be 8% overweight. Nobody wants them anymore.

The first **6**. How many of the first A400s will be over weight? Do you have a number or are you just adding noise to the arguement in your usual fashion?

I'm wiling to wager you a lifetime ban from a.net that the 400Ms *true* overweight value is worse than the 787s for any frame (as a percentage of specified OEW) in the production chain upto say frame 20? (With the caveat of; if Airbus delays for more than another 6 months to trim weight (or any other cover exucse) then all bets are off)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Comparing final OEW between a passenger and militairy transport long before the first prototype has even flown is questionable anyway.

Didn't see you complaining when you decided to quip:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?

 sarcastic 

But clearly now that you're backed into a corner and you've been proven via published numbers to be wrong you start with the strawmen again. Luckily everyone on this forum knows you are the biggest Airbus cheerleader on A.net and because you have 'seen the A400M' on a tour somehow think it's the physical embodiment of (insert deity of choice here).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.

Not *once* have I ever claimed that everything with completely rosey with the 787 program for the last two years. I openly admit Boeing screwed up royally. I don't need a decoy, but it would be great if you could somehow find yourself able to do the same. Now, I'm sure you'll respond with some random picture of an A400M, quote some outdated and/or irrelevant information in an attempt to destract and 'decoy' everyone from what's really going on with the A400M, but that *will not* change the fact that the program has been an ABSOLUTE and so far, unmitigated disaster. 3 years late and still no first flight, stripped feature set, big OEW issue, untested engines, untested/non-certifiable FADEC. Yes, I'm sure everything is rosey in EADS land.  sarcastic 

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 13):
Some sources also hint at other problems, including aerodynamic issues stemming from the design of its tail, a notion rejected by Airbus Military CEO Domingo Ureña.

I can't help but wonder if these are the same sources that hinted at big problems back when Airbus was sayin everything was fine.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:25 pm

The have "agreed to postphone a decision" on the A400M until the end of July (presumably this year) "to decide on a negotiating strategy on who is to foot the bill for delivery delays". Doesn't sound like there's a consensus yet?
 confused   scratchchin 
http://www.latimes.com/business/nati...u-spain-eads-a400m,0,6691892.story

Quote:
MADRID (AP) — Defense ministers from seven European nations participating in a project to build the troubled A400M military transport plane have agreed to postpone a decision on its future for a month, officials said Monday.

Participating governments have given themselves until the end of July to decide a negotiating strategy on who is to foot the bill for delivery delays with manufacturer, Airbus Military, Spanish Defense Ministry official Constantino Mendez said.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:25 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The first 6x 787s will probably be 8% overweight. Nobody wants them anymore.

The first examples of any new type are always over weight. Airbus is off-loading the first 5 model A-380s, at a discount. Someone will snap these B-787s up. They still beat anything out there for CASM, including your A-330.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Comparing initial A400M OEWs with hoped for final 787 OEW's is incorrect.

Comparing final OEW between a passenger and militairy transport long before the first prototype has even flown is questionable anyway.

Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.

Why not? You were the one who brought it up. Do you remember posting this reply #9?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
As bad as the 787 has had it (and Boeing royally screwed it up), the 400M is miles worse in terms of not only being late, but missing operational marks (like empty weight).

Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
The first **6**. How many of the first A400s will be over weight? Do you have a number or are you just adding noise to the arguement in your usual fashion?

The first 20-25 A-400Ms will not reach the promised performance or payload capability.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
The have "agreed to postphone a decision" on the A400M until the end of July (presumably this year) "to decide on a negotiating strategy on who is to foot the bill for delivery delays". Doesn't sound like there's a consensus yet?

Of course they will. They don't want to pay for all the A-400M screw-ups, and want better pricing. Of course, they do have EADS locked into guarentteed pricing now.

What is EADS going to do with the contracted price for the 8 South Africa or 4 Malaysa A-400Ms Will they get screwed by EADS? Or will they be the first to cancel their orders?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:48 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
Maybe it has to do with Dreamliner frustration & a decoy is necessary.

Physician, heal thyself.

Tossing 787 attacks out there to try and cover your frustrations with the A400M isn't doing the discussion any benefits, either.
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:15 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
But clearly now that you're backed into a corner and you've been proven via published numbers to be wrong you start with the strawmen again



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Why not? You were the one who brought it up.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Tossing 787 attacks out there to try and cover your frustrations with the A400M isn't doing the discussion any benefits, either.

Incorrect, the 787 was brought up in reply 7 & 8, not by me.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
787



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
787

I reacted to clearly wrong info on the 787 and A400M.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:23 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
Incorrect, the 787 was brought up in reply 7 & 8, not by me.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
787



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
787

I reacted to clearly wrong info on the 787 and A400M.

The replies in #7 & #8 were clearly NOT attacks on the B-787 program. Their information is correct, the B-787 is late and slightly overweight. But, the A-400M program is clearly far worse than the B-787 program.

Here is what you said in Reply #9:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Is the 787 OEW is on target now or will the A400M not be on target ?

No one has said the B-787 has now reached the OEW target of 240,000 lbs. It will be by ZA-007 or ZA-008. The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane #20.
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:34 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Their information is correct, the B-787 is late and slightly overweight. But, the A-400M program is clearly far worse than the B-787 program.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
No one has said the B-787 has now reached the OEW target of 240,000 lbs. It will be by ZA-007 or ZA-008. The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane #20.

As far as I know Dreamliners #7-20 will also be overweight. ANA will take them under a revised contract. Numbers #21 and further : only promises & hope we have seen before.

On the A400M :

"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.


These quotes from the article linked in reply 12 are of course far from objective, thet are from an EADS manager.

To state "The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane" you need more then gut feeling & hope. You need hard evidence.

On the 787 as well as the A400M we can only know OEW / performance for sure after "production standard" aircraft have entered service. For now its all speculation & vague info used when suitable.

For me as far as I can see the aircraft has the right dimensions, payload and performance, fine engines, a 200 aircraft backlog and no serious competition. Political opportunism and patriotic preferences won't change those basics.

If budget rises, performance on the first aircraft nd entry into service date were that crusial the C-130J and C-17 would not have been in service. Operational need / lack of alternatives was more important. That goes for the A400M too.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:21 pm

Some light shed on the 6 months versus end of July time frame to make a decision on the program.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...sion%3B-decision-in-late-july.html

Quote:
PARIS --- Seeking major concessions from prime contractor Airbus Military, Britain yesterday vetoed a French-German proposal to extend ongoing talks on the A400M military transport aircraft until the end of the year.

Instead, defense ministers of the seven partner nations (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and UK) agreed to meet again in Paris in late July to decide and how, to take the program forward.

A major advance at the Seville meeting is that ministers determined that, “subject to the fulfilment by industry of certain conditions, the A400M is still a feasible programme.” (see below)

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:50 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
To state "The A-400M will not reach its OEW target of 154,000 lbs, nor its payload capability until at least Production airplane" you need more then gut feeling & hope. You need hard evidence.

Okay, how about this?

“We completely underestimated [the task]...no military aircraft can be developed in less than 10 years, and in the A400M we are inventing everything,” EADS CEO Louis Gallois told the media this week. He said the company wanted to renegotiate “some technical specifications which are very demanding and costly, but which offer only marginal improvements in performance.

His comments suggested that the powerplants and their software are not the only problems, although he declined to provide specifics. AIN understands that the weight, pressurization and landing gear could also be major challenges.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-with-customers-for-a400m-rethink/

Notice how EADS is now offering France some A-330Fs for the interum?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ure
[quote=Keesje,reply=20]As far as I know

"But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure." ""I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract,"

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
On the A400M :

"We've got a pretty good engine," says EPI president Nick Durham. "Performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams." The turboprop is operating within maximum temperature margins, meeting specified fuel consumption targets and is just 1% above its specified weight target of 1.9t, he adds.

But the Airbus Military boss denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
For me as far as I can see the aircraft has the right dimensions, payload and performance, fine engines, a 200 aircraft backlog and no serious competition.

I doubt you can see across the street. The A-400M has 192 orders. I wouldn't be surprised to see South Africa (8 aircraft) and Malasia (4 aircraft) pull out soon. Then you will be down to 180 orders.

Do you think the UK will also cancel their 25 airplane order? They are already getting C-17s and C-130Js (including the C-130-30J). Why do they need the A-400M now?
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:11 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
EADS CEO Louis Gallois told the media this week. He said the company wanted to renegotiate “some technical specifications which are very demanding and costly, but which offer only marginal improvements in performance.

His comments suggested that the powerplants and their software are not the only problems, although he declined to provide specifics.

It's about functionalities such as automatic terrain following and tanking with the time schedule.. It was published moths ago.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
I doubt you can see across the street. The A-400M has 192 orders. I wouldn't be surprised to see South Africa (8 aircraft) and Malasia (4 aircraft) pull out soon. Then you will be down to 180 orders.

Do you think the UK will also cancel their 25 airplane order? They are already getting C-17s and C-130Js (including the C-130-30J). Why do they need the A-400M now?

KC135TopBoom, all speculation. If the A400M meets its specifications it will be the only dedicated 20-36t platform and no doubt more orders will follow. The C-130 can't fit the required loads and doesn't have airway performance, C-17 costs more then an A380 and is oversized for almost all mission except flying around a main battle tank.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
I doubt you can see across the street.

I think you see things that are not really there.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bennett123
Posts: 7437
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:23 pm

Question is how many operators simply can't wait for the A400M to eventually become available.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:07 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 24):
Question is how many operators simply can't wait for the A400M to eventually become available.

The U.K. for one, wouldn't allow the six-month extension proposed by France and Germany.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...sion%3B-decision-in-late-july.html

Quote:
"PARIS --- Seeking major concessions from prime contractor Airbus Military, Britain yesterday vetoed a French-German proposal to extend ongoing talks on the A400M military transport aircraft until the end of the year.

Instead, defense ministers of the seven partner nations (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and UK) agreed to meet again in Paris in late July to decide and how, to take the program forward."


.....Doesn't seem the British are dying to have it.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:41 am



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 25):

.....Doesn't seem the British are dying to have it.

What people are failing to understand is; if Britain bails out (note I said IF), then South Africa and Malaysia will also likely bail. This will increase costs enormously for those left. It's very much a house of cards right now IMHO. Can Germany afford and are they prepared to shoulder the additional costs if those other three cancel their orders? If Germany decides they can't (even in part) things get very very very dicey.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:46 am



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 25):
.....Doesn't seem the British are dying to have it.

I think they are like us, wanting to know what Airbus thinks the get well plan for the A400M is as soon as possible, so they can make a decision about what to do next as soon as possible.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:17 pm

Here's an Op-Ed arguing that the RAF should walk away from the A400M despite potential consequences, which are:

Op-Ed: The Case Against the A400M

Quote:
Arguments by proponents of the A400M programme fall into two categories: those who fear political repercussions, and those who fear repercussions on the domestic defence and aerospace industry. While both are a concern, they do not justify the continuation of the programme.

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the programme will affect and likely upset some European partners. It could complicate current negotiations with the aircraft maker. Alternative buyers may have to be found, or the unit price for the other partners could go up. However, according to the CEO of EADS, the UK’s exit from the A400M programme would not mean its end.

Nor is it likely to mean the UK’s exclusion from future European defence collaboration. The United Kingdom cannot be ignored as a customer, and its companies possess undeniable industrial know-how. Like its partners, the UK needs to carefully balance the costs and benefits of the programme. That such an analysis leads to different outcomes is not least due to the different industrial stakes and outlook in the project.

As for the industrial repercussions, the British aerospace and defence companies are strong and internationally competitive, successful both in the European and U.S. markets. The success of the domestic defence industry is not least highlighted by the UK’s position as one of the world’s largest arms exporters.

Having said that, it cannot be excluded that the UK’s withdrawal from the A400M programme could carry consequences for some companies. The effect on the overall defence industry, however, will not be significant; and the United Kingdom should not be held hostage by companies or special interest groups.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:37 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
It's about functionalities such as automatic terrain following and tanking with the time schedule.. It was published moths ago.

Now that is funny, considering the F/FB-111 had automatic TFR some 40 years ago. TFR is not new, cutting edge technoligy. The C/HC/KC-130 has been doing the tanker job now for 40 years, and doesn't EADS benifit from technoligy transfer from the A-330MRTT program?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
KC135TopBoom, all speculation. If the A400M meets its specifications it will be the only dedicated 20-36t platform and no doubt more orders will follow. The C-130 can't fit the required loads and doesn't have airway performance, C-17 costs more then an A380 and is oversized for almost all mission except flying around a main battle tank.

That is a very big "IF". The C-130J can carry some 90% of the cargo type (size), also the C-130J has a max cruse of 348 knots, at FL280 (time to climb at MTOW is only 14 minutes), carring some 42,000 lbs (21 tons), and a cargo compartment volume of 129 sq m (the J-30 model has 37% more volume). The USAF flyaway cost of each C-130J is $52M US.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/c-130j-specs.htm

The current list price of the A-380-800 is $327M

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-an-airbus-a380-cost

The current flyaway costs of the A-400M is EUR 145M, EADS wants a 30% increase to EUR 188.5M, or about $241.28M US(more than 4.5 X the costs of a C-130J). It is some 12 tonnes over weight. Both the costs and weight are according to the French Senate. Wikipedia, in a very old story posted the A-400M costs at just EUR 100M each.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...A-uk-should-pull-out-of-a400m.html

The flyaway costs of a new build C-17A/ER is $202M-$218M US, depending on options ($109M less than the A-380 and $23.28 less than the A-400M). So which airplane costs more (for less capability)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III

BTW, the C-17 only flys the M-1-A2 MBT around less than 1% of the time, usually it flies other oversized cargo.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
I doubt you can see across the street.

I think you see things that are not really there.

I gave references, you didn't

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 28):
Here's an Op-Ed arguing that the RAF should walk away from the A400M despite potential consequences, which are:

Op-Ed: The Case Against the A400M

A mix of 20 C-130Js and 10 C-17A/ERs (including the airplanes the RAF already has) will provide more airlift capability and the RAF will be able to get the first new builds long before the first of 25 remaining C-130Ks need to begin retiring in 2012. Additionally, both the C-130J and C-17A are already combat proven platforms, the A-400M is still 6 months to 1 year from the first test flight, and 3-4 years from the first delivery to France. Based on the "normal" production ramp up, and assuming the A-400M testing finds no major problems, the RAF cannot get their first A-400M before 2015, or later. This does not include time to correct weight and mission capacity issues.

Maybe France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Belgium, and Luxembourg ought to reconsider the future of the A-400M, along with the UK, South Africa, and Malaysia?
 
trex8
Posts: 4598
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:20 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The USAF flyaway cost of each C-130J is $52M US.

that may be what US taxpayers pay but its nowhere near FMS sales prices, Israel 9 for 1.9 billion, Iraq 6 for 1.5 billion.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:19 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 30):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The USAF flyaway cost of each C-130J is $52M US.

that may be what US taxpayers pay but its nowhere near FMS sales prices, Israel 9 for 1.9 billion, Iraq 6 for 1.5 billion.

FMS of any US, French, UK, or Russian weapons sytem are often a higher price per unit than what the manufacturing country pays per unit. That is usually because the OEM is also allowed to sell years worth of weapons system support services, including routine or depot level maintenance, spares, etc. The flyawy price per unit, without all the other costs added on will be the same, or very close to what the USAF paid, assuming the airplanes are equipped the same.

You may notice that Iraq got a much better deal for FMS from LM for their C-130Js than Israel did.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:31 am

Britain Signals It May Not Pay EADS for Cost Overruns on A400M

Quote:
“This situation is very difficult and we want to be co- operative” with EADS, junior defense minister Quentin Davies, who has responsibility for equipment procurement, said in an interview in London. “But that absolutely cannot be at the expense of our armed forces and the British taxpayer.”

As all along, it seems the UK has the most strident public posture.

DE and FR was willing to give Airbus another 6 months to come up with the get well plan, UK insisted on 1 month, and that's the position that was taken.

More...

Quote:
“My mind is open,” Davies said. “I would like to find a way of this project being saved but it can’t be at the expense of the taxpayer and the armed forces and we have certain requirements that must be met. Our position is absolutely clear. Our constraints are absolute.”

That's pretty darn firm.

The article goes on to quote Gallois saying the project could survive the loss of the UK.

Seems the odds of the UK leaving the program are pretty good.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:57 am

There are ways that the UK could "make nice" on the A400M but also get out of this mess. Agree to keep the deposits already paid in the kitty so to speak, with the UK orders converting to options that would need to be executed at the back of the current backlog.

If they demanded repayment and an outright cancel (which appears to be inside of their contract rights) they do place an added burden on EADS and the other EU nations. That could have a backlash.

This option would allow the UK to kick down the road the decision on further A400M investment until it is known what the real performance is. It also allows them to get the needed planes now- 10 - C17's and 15 C-130J's or a similar combination at about the same budgetary expense.

I think a big worry is - how many years would it be before the 50th A400M is off the line. That would be about the time the UK would have their first 10.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:16 am



Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 33):
Agree to keep the deposits already paid in the kitty so to speak, with the UK orders converting to options that would need to be executed at the back of the current backlog.

Intereting compromise.

Article says 5.7B EUR is in the kitty now, UK has 25/180 of the original orders, so that's around 800M EUR that the UK would have paid for the options. Kinda pricey, but that's all water under the bridge.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 33):
I think a big worry is - how many years would it be before the 50th A400M is off the line. That would be about the time the UK would have their first 10.

And that the 10 won't be to the same standard.

It's an interesting compromise, and a compromise is needed very badly, so perhaps that's what will happen, but I bet if other countries were offered that deal, they'd take it. I think FR and DE need to stay onboard otherwise it will unravel, but surely if the UK can walk away now without putting any more cash into the kitty or having a firm commitment to the 25 frames, the cost per frame will surely skyrocket.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:36 pm

I think the real question for the UK, Germany, and France is "how long can they wait for the A-400M"? The cargo airplanes the A-400M is to replace, C-130Es and C-160s, are near, at, or slightly beyond their service lives.

With the initial deliveries at least 3 years away, from now, the older airplanes will either have to shoulder on (by then well beyond their service lives), or France, Germany, and Britian will have to retire them and go without that airlift capability until the EADS airplanes arrive, in numbers that each Air Force needs.

Each country either has to except that option, or begin placing orders for interim (or permite) airplanes to supplement deliveryor replace the A-400M.

The choice is clear, for each government. Support your own military forces and the missions you want them to fly, or support EADS.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:04 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):

As all along, it seems the UK has the most strident public posture.

Remember the ownership of EADS when the UK signed on in the first place. One could question whether or not they were ever really interested in the 400M if it wasn't for the UK stake in Airbus at the time.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):


I think the real question for the UK, Germany, and France is "how long can they wait for the A-400M"? The cargo airplanes the A-400M is to replace, C-130Es and C-160s, are near, at, or slightly beyond their service lives.

Well let's wait to hear the new development schedule. That should be soon, no?
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:47 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
With the initial deliveries at least 3 years away, from now, the older airplanes will either have to shoulder on (by then well beyond their service lives), or France, Germany, and Britian will have to retire them and go without that airlift capability until the EADS airplanes arrive, in numbers that each Air Force needs.

Each country either has to except that option, or begin placing orders for interim (or permite) airplanes to supplement delivery

In that respect, the two KC-45 prototypes are being looked at, but there seems to be a problem with ownership, with the USAF also having partial interest?.....

http://www.ainonline.com/ain-defense...5-conundrum-for-airbus/?no_cache=1

Quote:
"It has not gone unnoticed that the French and other European air forces are desperately in need of additional airlift resources, because of delays to the Airbus A400M military transport program. EADS/Airbus has offered to supply aircraft, such as the C-295 and the A330, as interim airlifters. The two KC-45s/A330s at Getafe would be ideal candidates, and given the current lack of A300/A310 freighter conversion work at Dresden, might be quickly converted and made available. But it seems that these airplanes are in legal limbo, while Northrop Grumman negotiates compensation with the Pentagon for last year’s termination. Northrop Grumman vice-president Paul Meyer told AIN that his company would submit a claim within the 360-day deadline set by the U.S. government, and that the two aircraft were part of it. An informed source told AIN that one of the two KC-45s/A330s is part-owned by the U.S. Air Force."

The partner countries may have to squabble over who has first dibs on both aircraft. stirthepot 
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:40 am

The first 120 C-17 costed $43 billion, in 1994 The project was nearly killed but there was no alternative.

http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao94141.htm
https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/843
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...alia-wants-2-billion-c-t20305.html
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/103668/

The price has been above 300 million a ship for some time. (check the Emirates, Canada and Australia deals,.. >> 300 million.

What the US payed sofar for their 180 C-17's You don't want to go there..

The C-130 just can't carry the vehicles that will be bought for the next 40 yrs. The C-17 is optimized for the M1 and giga expensive. I do not know why there exists nothing inbetween those. Its a enormous 60 tonnes gab.

Objectively The C130, A400M and C-17 are not even in the same class.



Both C-130 & C-17 are reaching the end of their production lines. I think the tactical A400m will land nicely in the market. I do understand why Lockheed Martin (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17B) are restless and might consider joining the program before the other or NG does.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9820
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...e-only-people-that-like-the-a400m/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The choice is clear, for each government. Support your own military forces and the missions you want them to fly, or support EADS.

Similarity to the KC767 tanker process is striking..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:56 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
Objectively The C130, A400M and C-17 are not even in the same class.

Indeed...only 2 out of the three have proven they can fly.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):

The price has been above 300 million a ship for some time. (check the Emirates, Canada and Australia deals,.. >> 300 million.

What the US payed sofar for their 180 C-17's You don't want to go there..

So far, there is no final price for the A400 so comparisons are moot.

Whatever else can be said about it, the C-17 is currently in service, and doing very well, as is the C130J. It will be at least another 3 years before that can be said of the A400...at any price.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:58 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
I think the real question for the UK, Germany, and France is "how long can they wait for the A-400M"? The cargo airplanes the A-400M is to replace, C-130Es and C-160s, are near, at, or slightly beyond their service lives.

With the initial deliveries at least 3 years away, from now, the older airplanes will either have to shoulder on (by then well beyond their service lives), or France, Germany, and Britian will have to retire them and go without that airlift capability until the EADS airplanes arrive, in numbers that each Air Force needs.

Each country either has to except that option, or begin placing orders for interim (or permite) airplanes to supplement deliveryor replace the A-400M.

The choice is clear, for each government. Support your own military forces and the missions you want them to fly, or support EADS.

The way they are acting is quite telling.

11 Jun: Sarkozy, Merkel Agree To Delay Decision on A400M (by 6 Months)

22 Jun: Ministers Delay Decision on A400M By Month

Seems FR and DE got out in front with the 6 month position, but the UK said no way, and it is now 1 month.

I think the UK wants this over with ASAP so they can decide if it's time to move on and order more C-130Js / C-17s.

Some interesting quotes from the second article:

Quote:
The U.K.'s position reflected severe budgetary constraints, while the British chief of the Defence Staff was under pressure to fill short-term requirements with C-17s and C-130Js rather than consider the A400M's long-term export potential, the French official said. Britain has less of an industrial stake in the A400M than continental partners, the official added.

So, no, I'm not making this all up.

Quote:
Britain has made financial proposals to the other customer nations, which they are unlikely to accept, Reuters has reported.

So UK seems to be far apart from the other's positions, but at least they've put their cards on the table.

Quote:
EADS is burning cash at an average 120 million euros a month on the A400M, and with at least three years of development ahead, the company wants the countries to agree on further funding.

Ouch! That's $1.4B EUR a year for at least another 3 years, so at least a $4B EUR overrun.

No wonder the UK wants off the burning ship!

On another tack, according to Boeing, The A400M would cost 38 percent more to purchase than a C-17 and would be 45 percent more expensive to operate. Would be interesting to see how they come to that conclusion.

My guess would be that most of the operating costs will have to do with 4 troublesome all-new turboprops versus 4 turrbofans derived from 757 engines with countless hours or service.

It seems EPI's lack of understanding of civil aviation certification processes has probably cost the program at least one year or $1.4B EUR. Tha'ts a pretty damn costly mistake!
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:38 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
On another tack, according to Boeing, The A400M would cost 38 percent more to purchase than a C-17 and would be 45 percent more expensive to operate. Would be interesting to see how they come to that conclusion.

Yes, that would be interesting, especially while they are again in the process of restoring credibility to their 787 customers (delivery, technology) , Wall Street (787 schedule, Sea Launch), DOD (Tanker), The Army (FCS) and the media (even pro Boeing media are starting to ask questions).

I think the US might need the A400M. http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9820 The C130J and C-17 are more unlikely to fill in European gabs then the other way around. Those big armoured vehicles don't fit in Herc and the C-17 is nearing the end of the line. Stay tuned..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:49 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
The price has been above 300 million a ship for some time. (check the Emirates, Canada and Australia deals,.. >> 300 million.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
FMS of any US, French, UK, or Russian weapons sytem are often a higher price per unit than what the manufacturing country pays per unit.

Those are FMS, which include a lot more than the price of the airplanes. Things like life time support, etc.

What is Airbus selling price each A-330MRTT or A-400Ms for on the FMS market? I'll bet South Africa and Maylasia didn't get the sweetheart price per airplane the EU countries got for the A-400M.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
The first 120 C-17 costed $43 billion, in 1994 The project was nearly killed but there was no alternative.

That $43B also includes things like the 10 year developement process, tooling costs, etc. All absorbed by the US taxpayer. Sharing these costs were not passed on to the UK, Canada, Austrailia, NATO, Norway, or Emirates.

BTW, there was an offer, in the mid 1990s, by Boeing (C-17 production was then under MD), to sell new build B-747-400Fs to replace some C-17As.


Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
The C-130 just can't carry the vehicles that will be bought for the next 40 yrs.

Then don't design and build them.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The choice is clear, for each government. Support your own military forces and the missions you want them to fly, or support EADS.

Similarity to the KC767 tanker process is striking..

Why didn't you use the whole quote, and not just a selected part?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
With the initial deliveries at least 3 years away, from now, the older airplanes will either have to shoulder on (by then well beyond their service lives), or France, Germany, and Britian will have to retire them and go without that airlift capability until the EADS airplanes arrive, in numbers that each Air Force needs.

Each country either has to except that option, or begin placing orders for interim (or permite) airplanes to supplement delivery or replace the A-400M.

The choice is clear, for each government. Support your own military forces and the missions you want them to fly, or support EADS.

These are the current USAF prices per airplane, except the A-400M and A-380. You are the one complaining about prices, and trying to BS away the overpriced A-400M.

You may recall, I gave references to back these curent prices up. You didn't, except a 1994 price, which is 15 years old.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The USAF flyaway cost of each C-130J is $52M US.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The current flyaway costs of the A-400M is EUR 145M, EADS wants a 30% increase to EUR 188.5M, or about $241.28M US(more than 4.5 X the costs of a C-130J). It is some 12 tonnes over weight. Both the costs and weight are according to the French Senate.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The flyaway costs of a new build C-17A/ER is $202M-$218M US, depending on options ($109M less than the A-380 and $23.28 less than the A-400M).



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
BTW, the C-17 only flys the M-1-A2 MBT around less than 1% of the time, usually it flies other oversized cargo.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
Both C-130 & C-17 are reaching the end of their production lines. I think the tactical A400m will land nicely in the market. I do understand why Lockheed Martin (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17B) are restless and might consider joining the program before the other or NG does.

We don't know how long the C-17A and C-130J will be in production, yet. But we do know the A-400M IS NOT in production, nor will it be for at least 2 years..

BTW, how come you never mention the A-400M has lost sales to the C-17A/ER to Australia, Canada, Norway, NATO, Sweden, Emirates, and possibly (soon I hope) UK?

Here is a brief history of the A-400M (failure?) program;

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...act-Controversies-05080/#more-5080

It is about 1/3 the way down of page #2

"The A400M Program: History


A400M concept
(click to view full)The original EUR 16 billion A400M contract was signed in December 2001 for development and production of 196 aircraft. That contract scheduled the first flight for 2006 and initial deliveries for 2008. A EUR 20 billion contract was signed in 2003, and the original dates have now slipped to 2009 or even 2010 for first flight; 2013 is now being discussed as the realistic initial delivery date.

Without flying aircraft, and with a backlog of almost 200 planes, Airbus has already lost potential opportunities in Norway, Canada, and India; even as Lockheed Martin uses that time to solidify the MC/HC-130J variant’s position as a Special Operations aircraft. June 26/08 saw the first A400M aircraft rolled out at the final assembly line in Seville, Spain, but aircraft weight growth is being reported as a critical issue, testbed issues are slowing engine certification, and first flight has now been moved back again from summer 2008 to some time in 2009 – 2010.

The key milestone remains the beginning of deliveries, which has escalated into a significant contractual issue at Airbus. In September 2008, EADS CEO Louis Gallois has reportedly sent a letter to the governments of 7 countries who have ordered the A400M, asking them to waive the contract’s built-in penalties for late delivery. Their alternative was a freeze in production from Airbus. They chose not to change the existing agreement. Those production delays came to pass, and EADS has now submitted a proposal to OCCAR that would both revise the procurement agreement, and make some changes to the aircraft.

According to the February 2009 report from the French Senat, serious development problems and delays have arisen in the aircraft’s digital engine controls, navigation and low-level flight systems, horizontal tail surfaces, and the definition of the wing design. Airbus’ current proposal apparently includes an interim standard that would not be capable of the more sophisticated flight modes, until avionics issues have been resolved.

The key specifications change to date involves base weight estimates that have risen by 12t/ 26,500 pounds. Airbus is not proposing to change the aircraft’s 37t carrying capacity, which implies a new maximum landing weight of 134t instead of 122t. That means the most likely performance changes will be to speed (300 knots target), unrefueled range (3,450 nm target for 20t C-130J class payload; 1,780nm target at maximum 37t), and to the length of runway required for takeoff (914 m/ 3,000 feet target) and landing (822 m/ 2,700 feet target) when fully loaded. Some customers and potential customers may have issues if those new lengths extend too far, and begin to exclude a number of bases currently in use by Lockheed’s competing C-130 family.

The 2009 Senat report report estimated that A400M production would ramp up only in 2014, and that it would take until 2020 to clear the backlog introduced by development delays, assuming acceptable settlement of contractual and development issues. Current costs per A400M aircraft are placed at at EUR 145 million, vs. 110 million in 1998 Euros. At 2%-3% inflation per year, EUR98 100 million turns into about EUR 120 million by 2009, so the rise in price is about 21% in real terms over the past decade."

I wonder why the A-400M was not static displayed at the recent Paris Airshow? Oops, I'm sorry, the A-400M cannot fly. It would have had to be dismantled and flown in aboard a C-17A.
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
What is Airbus selling price each A-330MRTT or A-400Ms for on the FMS market?

As much as they can get, and little competition (the last KC767 was ordered almost 10 yrs ago)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
BTW, how come you never mention the A-400M has lost sales to the C-17A/ER to Australia, Canada, Norway, NATO, Sweden, Emirates, and possibly (soon I hope) UK?

Availabilty. With planned production rates, backlog and demanding airforce (angry airforces want them yesterday) slots would not be available before say 2014-15, even before delays.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
The 2009 Senat report report estimated that A400M production would ramp up only in 2014, and that it would take until 2020 to clear the backlog introduced by development delays, assuming acceptable settlement of contractual and development issues.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
You may recall, I gave references to back these curent prices up. You didn't, except a 1994 price, which is 15 years old.

 Wow! I did numerous times. See previous threads. All come to around 300 Million, some more.

The C-17s are impressive aircraft and hands-down CF favourite. C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive – the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft. Constant US government pressure reduced that price slightly but these numbers vary depending on what is being counted. DND originally estimated the cost of 6 C-17s at $1-to-$1.6B.[3] But the cost given for the new Airlift Capability Program-Strategic is $3.4B for only 4 C-17s (or US$762.5M each) due to a 20 year maintenance deal. Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares. http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-c17.htm


Prices
1997 : 275 million / ac
1998 : 255 million / ac
1999 : 230 million / ac
2000 : 206 million / ac
2001 : 268 million / ac


https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/843


More recently Australia paid 4 million for 4 C-17.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93258,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Support ? -> Seperate multi billion sustainment contracts.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...+billion&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I again get the feeling some folks are trying to talk the C-17 into a similar priced A400M alternative by letting A400M costs explode and C-17 costs implode.

That is a interesting exercition but has nothing to do with the reality of C-17 / A400M pricing.

Then again in 3 months somebody will again say the A400M and C-17 are similar priced, it just sounds so good..  zzz 
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:32 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):

I think the US might need the A400M. http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9820

We better not need it too soon, the French Senate says at best the current backlog won't be filled till 2020 or so. But of course there may be 25 open slots in a month or two, courtesy of the UK.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
The C130J and C-17 are more unlikely to fill in European gabs then the other way around. Those big armoured vehicles don't fit in Herc and the C-17 is nearing the end of the line. Stay tuned..

Stay tuned indeed. C-17 production line is funded till end 2010 already to bring the USAF fleet up to 205 without considering current proposals (the House has added 17 new frames, the Senate has added 8 for next years budget), not to mention whatever comes in from foreign sales. From Wiki:

Quote:
In June 2009 the Indian Air Force (IAF) was reported to have selected the C-17 to meet a Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft requirement. The service curently uses the Ilyushin Il-76 for heavy lift. Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik has been quoted as saying that the IAF requires ten C-17s. The proposal is being considered by the Indian Ministry of Defence,[75] but an order has not been placed.[76]

India is already signed up for the P-8 program as well, so it seems India is becoming a big fan of US hardware.

I'd say it's quite likely the UK will pull out of the A400M and order more C-17s and C-130Js. Stay tuned!
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:21 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 44):
Stay tuned indeed. C-17 production line is funded till end 2010 already to bring the USAF fleet up to 205 without considering current proposals (the House has added 17 new frames, the Senate has added 8 for next years budget), not to mention whatever comes in from foreign sales.

Yes and possibly until 2011, even 2012 or 2013..

A few yrs after that hundreds of Herc's have to be replaced everywhere and it's load have grown.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 38):
The C-130 just can't carry the vehicles that will be bought for the next 40 yrs.

Then don't design and build them.

Deny the requirements. Interesting solution.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:54 pm

Some interesting insight provided by Tom Williams, EVP Programmes, Airbus, at the RAeS Hamburg Branch, 4th June, 2009.
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...gement_of_Programmes_at_Airbus.pdf

For A400M go to page 15. Lots of information on A350, A380 and A320 as well.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:27 pm



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 46):
For A400M go to page 15.

Well, now no one can say that Airbus was OK with using the EPI engine after reading Williams's comments, which say the P&WC engine was lower cost and lower risk. Depending on how you figure, it seems going with EPI was at least a $1B EUR mistake.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:57 pm



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 46):
Some interesting insight provided by Tom Williams, EVP Programmes, Airbus, at the RAeS Hamburg Branch, 4th June, 2009.
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...s.pdf

Indeed!

"A380: Some lessons learned

Development and certification more or less on time (6 months late)"

 rotfl  Priceless!
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 3

Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:47 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
I think the US might need the A400M. http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9820 The C130J and C-17 are more unlikely to fill in European gabs then the other way around. Those big armoured vehicles don't fit in Herc and the C-17 is nearing the end of the line. Stay tuned..

None of those big armored vehicles, for the A-400M have been designed or built. BTW, do you know how most armored vehicels are transported, it is by ship, not airplanes.

The C-17 line is assured now until the end of 2011, and that is without the Indian Air Force order, or the order from the UAE.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 43):
the last KC767 was ordered almost 10 yrs ago

It was 2003 (6 years ago) when Italy placed their order, Japan orderd it in 2002 (7 years ago). BTW, that was also about the same time most A-400M orders were placed. All 8 KC-767s have been built, 3 delivered, and how many A-400Ms have been built? ONE. How many have been delivered? NONE

Quoting Keesje (Reply 43):
C-17s are also phenomenonally expensive %u2013 the USAF C-17A fleet averaged US$241M per aircraft.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 43):
Prices
1997 : 275 million / ac
1998 : 255 million / ac
1999 : 230 million / ac
2000 : 206 million / ac
2001 : 268 million / ac


https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/843

You really need up to date information. All of this you post is info back in 2000 and 2001.

The current USAF price for a C-17 is $202M-$218M, period. The current price the USAF would pay for an A-400M, if they ordered it today would be $241.28M, period.

So, get off this price crap, you don't have anything current to back up what you say..

BTW, the C-17 can do two things the A-400M cannot do.....FLY....CARRY THE CARGO IT WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 43):
More recently Australia paid 4 million for 4 C-17.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93258,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Read it again, the total costs to the RAAF for 4 C-17A/ERs was $2B Aus

Support ? -> Seperate multi billion sustainment contracts.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...&aqi=



Quoting Keesje (Reply 43):
I again get the feeling some folks are trying to talk the C-17 into a similar priced A400M alternative by letting A400M costs explode and C-17 costs implode

No one says the C-17 and A-400 are similarly priced. The A-400M is more expensive, and right now, doesn't work.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 45):
Yes and possibly until 2011, even 2012 or 2013..

Is that your best guess as to when A-400M LRIP will begin?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 45):
A few yrs after that hundreds of Herc's have to be replaced everywhere and it's load have grown.

That's why LM has not said when they will close the C-130J production line.

No one knows when, or even IF, the A-400M will start production.

Keesje, you forgot to comment on this:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
I wonder why the A-400M was not static displayed at the recent Paris Airshow? Oops, I'm sorry, the A-400M cannot fly. It would have had to be dismantled and flown in aboard a C-17A.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests