• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:13 am

The previous A400M thread hit 300 & a news phase has started now the A400M has been handed over to the flight test department so I guess shutting down the old one & starting a fresh one is ok.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/111240/



This week a decision will be made in Berlin on the program.

[Edited 2009-11-17 01:14:05 by keesje]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:41 pm

KC135TopBoom:
In the last thread you said this:

Quote:

Outstanding, at least one customer is forcing EADS to stick with the current contract. But, I suspect EADS is not worried, they will simply add the lost $13M per airplane to the RMAF to the European customers. I'm sure the EU taxpayers just love to subsidise the military forces of Malaysia.

IMO it is correct that foreign buyers get the aicrafts for contracted price.

I expect those countries who funded the project (and who have the the political benefit) to cope for the development cost.

It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!

The same principle applies to nearly any exported military aircraft.

A small hint: the KC-330 would be THAT opportunity for the US to benefit directly from EU tax money! The more the A-330 would be subsidized, the more benefit! Be smart!

Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:55 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Uh....Because those subsidies would go to a foreign company instead of a domestic one? (Yeah, I know Northrop ain't foreign)
Anon
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:03 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Bit simplistic, but it can be looked at in that way, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.  Smile
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.

As for the A400M, I do believe that there is a market for an a/c below the C-17 and above the C-130 at least in cabin width, the question will be whether LM plays the ostrich and does not respond until the A400M has captured the entire market. If they do, expect the same furor that now exits with the KC30 to raise up when the US Air Force decides to have a competition to replace the C-130 and someone teams up with EADS to offer the A400M.

Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:31 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
IMO it is correct that foreign buyers get the aicrafts for contracted price.

I expect those countries who funded the project (and who have the the political benefit) to cope for the development cost.

It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!

The same principle applies to nearly any exported military aircraft.

That is very simplistic, and false. Usually countries outside of the developement funding buy these airplanes with more than just the airplane alone. there is usually a package that includes support of maintenance, spares, training, etc. That is exactly the case with Malayisa. They are paying $177M (US) for an airplane that at the time the contract was signed had a list price of $103M (US).

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
A small hint: the KC-330 would be THAT opportunity for the US to benefit directly from EU tax money! The more the A-330 would be subsidized, the more benefit! Be smart!

Why take an inferior aircraft, subsidized with own money? Better it is subsidized with foreign money!

Again your assumptions are wrong. First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program. Second, the US will pay developement costs for the A-330MRTT, or KC-767. You may recall the 2008 program, and this 2009 program call for 4 SDD airplanes, to be paid for by the US Government to develope the tanker the USAF wants and needs. You are correct, EADS paid for the initial developement, but Boeing also paid for the initial developement of the KC-767, a program that began in the early 1990s. That program was one reason why the USAF selected the KC-767 lease deal back in 2002. Boeing already had a tanker program in developement. Airbus was asked to submit a tanker in 2002, but then, they did not have a program. They started the A-330MRTT program because of that lease RFP.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
Uh....Because those subsidies would go to a foreign company instead of a domestic one? (Yeah, I know Northrop ain't foreign)

Correct.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Bit simplistic, but it can be looked at in that way, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.

The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either. It does something different than the A-400M does, as the A-400M does something different from the C-17.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:41 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Remember that when Airbus was created it was done to preserve an industry, at the time it's first products came out they were considered "inferior" by the rest of the world, but they were still purchased, so, if the US continues to purchase inferior C-130's to preserve its industry one should not complain.

American hero Buzz Aldrin played a crusial role. When he showed the potential of these early Airbusses the ice was broken and hundreds ordered. maybe there an Aldrin statue somewhere in Toulouse..

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
Bring on the testing, only then will we get to see the true colours of this a/c, lets hope it performs better than expected.

Even better the expected?  Wink

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.

So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either. It does something different than the A-400M does, as the A-400M does something different from the C-17.

Correct.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:06 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The C-130 is not inferior to the A-400M, either.

Agree, I menat it in the vain of the quote, apologies to the a/c and its supporters  Smile

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...

Well since they are two disimilar size a/c the Air Force will have fun and games with creative numbers
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:09 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 1):
It is *always* (or at least very typically) the case that the large fleets bought from the manufacturers home countries pay the development expenses. E.g. the development of the F/A 18 was financed by the USN (more precise: the price paid by US taxpayers for the large F-18 fleet was the return for the development expenses). Only because of that Switzerland could afford an aircraft with that capability. So many thanks to the US taxpayers from my side!

US FMS sales frequently have charges to help repay the development of that particular system, these can be a major source of contention for foreign customers as it can add substantially to the cost.The earlier customers tend to get hit with these first and later ones don't get screwed by the Pentagon - as much anyway. One recent example has been the delay in Taiwan's Pac3 Patriot deal signing for the actual missiles, they are hoping the UAE contract gets finalized first and the UAE end up paying more of these surcharges.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:46 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.

So it's equal when it meets certain requirements. Where's that winner mentality these days...

In the 2002 lease deal, the USAF invited Airbus to the compitition. They did not compete because at the time, they did not have a tanker. The A-310MRTT came about slightly later,but with used aircraft, not new builds and the A-330MRTT came about much later, in 2004, IIRC. It was formerly launched in 2005 with the RAAF order.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:37 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
In the 2002 lease deal, the USAF invited Airbus to the compitition. They did not compete because at the time, they did not have a tanker.

Hmm, I think that is a slightly incomplete respresentation of tanker history..

The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100
aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.


A big scandal followed, people went to jail, Boeing's CEO/CFO were fired & and a settlement with DoJ of $640 mln was done. Druyin took all the blame to keep high placed people like Wolfowitz, Albaugh and Condit out of the line of fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/bu...b43f63389f4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Back to the A400M, I think the pressure on Airbus Militairy to deliver substantial numbers of transports means little slots will become available for more customers until 2016 earliest.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:52 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
First the A-330MRTT is not superior to the KC-767, they both met the requirements of the KC-X program.

Caution! If you argue like that I could say that the C-17 is not superior to the A-400 too. At least there were RFP's that were met by both (and consequently the A-400 was chosen).

IMO superiority is based on absolute measures and not by the scope of RFP's. Only then the C-17 is superior to the A-400 in many cases.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:57 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 11):
IMO superiority is based on absolute measures and not by the scope of RFP's. Only then the C-17 is superior to the A-400 in many cases.

No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:59 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
American hero Buzz Aldrin played a crusial role. When he showed the potential of these early Airbusses the ice was broken and hundreds ordered. maybe there an Aldrin statue somewhere in Toulouse..

That was Frank Borman, not Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Frank Borman, Apollo 8 commander, became CEO of the now defunct Eastern Airlines and ordered the A300 at the very moment Airbus' sponsor governments were considering pulling the plug on the consortium due to a lack of sales. So it is Frank Borman that should have a statue prominently displayed in Toulouse (and barring that, you should put a framed picture of him somewhere in your living room and pay homage to him every morning before you leave for work.  Wink ).
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:16 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 12):
it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

That's not entirely truth IMO.

- It doesn't meet its original runway requirements http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf
- Nobody wants to know anymore the real cost per aircraft.. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf
- It has unexpected cracks. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-dispute-on-production-future.html

Strong selling point : it gets ordered even if Dod / USAF say they don't need it. http://www.dailynews.com/ci_13306605

Most of all, there is no competition (if you ignore Antonov).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
That was Frank Borman, not Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Frank Borman,

You are right! Borman :



..and Frank Kolk of AA.

The A300 proved a cost / realibility killer against the Lockheed Tristar. Speaking about Lockheed (Martin) it seems the are very vague now about the Fat Herc. They think there is little market potential.

Not sure if he is saying there's no market so they are not working on it, or, we have nothing to offer so really, there can't be demand yet..


Grant played down suggestions that the company was working on a bigger version of the airlifter to carry the increasingly heavily armoured vehicles now being designed for land forces to counter the threat of road side bombs and other munitions.

The executive said the company had looked at options to understand what was technically feasible should customers desire a larger aircraft.

There is no specific request from a customer and no design work underway he said.

Studies have shown that the C-130J was capable of conducting between 95 and 97 percent of all the requests for movements in theatre, said Grant.

http://defensenews.com/blogs/dubai-a...closes-on-uae-c-130j-deal-signing/

[Edited 2009-11-17 09:54:44 by keesje]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:06 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
Speaking about Lockheed (Martin) it seems the are very vague now about the Fat Herc. They think there is little market potential.

Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
Studies have shown that the C-130J was capable of conducting between 95 and 97 percent of all the requests for movements in theatre, said Grant.

Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:43 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.

Then they should see oppotunities I guess. Maybe the think even a fat C130 ain't good enough.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.

The C130J is a very good transport for up to 20t smaller dimensioned loads on shorter routes where using airways isn't neccesary.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Emirates2005
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:43 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:32 am

As per this website (only in Slovak) and quoting the German Focus magazine, the A400M is expected to take off on 30th November.

Let's see.  crossfingers 
A310, A332, B732, B738, B742, B743, B773, B77W, DC-10, ATR42, TU-134, TU-154, IL-62, MI-8, E190, A320, C172
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:57 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Maybe they don't feel the heat any longer to develop the Fat Herc now that the A400M is so late and apparently coming up short, as well as losing customers.

Then they should see oppotunities I guess. Maybe the think even a fat C130 ain't good enough.

Or maybe they don't see a market much beyond about 200 airplanes in this class, of which EADS already has 184 orders. Maybe LM is beginning to look at an A-400M replacement.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 14):
Perhaps the C-130J is far more capable than some would have us believe otherwise.

The C130J is a very good transport for up to 20t smaller dimensioned loads on shorter routes where using airways isn't neccesary.

Usually, the USAF doesn't fly airways.

Quoting Emirates2005 (Reply 16):
As per this website (only in Slovak) and quoting the German Focus magazine, the A400M is expected to take off on 30th November.

That would be nice if it happens, but where did Focus get that information? I didn't expect any updates before the customer and EADS meeting tomorrow and Friday in Berlin.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:22 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they? So how do you compare two airplanes built to meet entirely different specifications? That's like comparing the F-4 Phantom II to the MiG-21; two entirely different animals!
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:39 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
No matter what the technical merits or capabilities of the platforms are, the C-17 has a few things over the A400M: It is available today (you can even jump the line if you order one), it is under budget, is combat-proven, and is surpassing expectations.

Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they? So how do you compare two airplanes built to meet entirely different specifications? That's like comparing the F-4 Phantom II to the MiG-21; two entirely different animals!

Well, the F-4 bested the Mig-21 more often than the other way around. But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today. It is a much more capable airlifter.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9937
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:26 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today.

When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:38 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?

Never and nether has the A-400M.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9937
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:31 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
Never and nether has the A-400M.

That is what it is designed to do.

The comment was in reply to "the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today"

This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:53 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.

Listen, the A400M may be built as intended, in the numbers originally intended, and it may be a functional success, but it will never be the bargain it promised to be. There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:28 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).

I think I have a pretty good picture of C130, C-17 and A400M prices and capabilities and think are many thing the A400M will do better and cheaper then transports currently available. I find most of the negative press and opinions on it remarkable and unsubstantiated.

Recent programs like the A330F, A380 and A320/A330 enhancements give me confidence this will be an excellent aircraft too & the market looks bright.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But, the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today.

When was the last time a C-17 flew below 200 ft agl on autopilot following terrain, landed on soft unprepared strips, and then refueled a helicopter and fast jet ?



Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
Never and nether has the A-400M.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
That is what it is designed to do.

The comment was in reply to "the C-17 can do everthing the A-400M promises to do, and more today"

This is just adds to the long list of pot shots people take at the A400M and KC-30, give it time, it will work, and then people will need new material.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
Listen, the A400M may be built as intended, in the numbers originally intended, and it may be a functional success, but it will never be the bargain it promised to be. There will always be other aircraft that can do many of the same jobs (C-130) for less, or do many of the same jobs better for the same cost (C-17).



Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
I think I have a pretty good picture of C130, C-17 and A400M prices and capabilities and think are many thing the A400M will do better and cheaper then transports currently available. I find most of the negative press and opinions on it remarkable and unsubstantiated.

No Keesje, you don't have a clue about the pricing of the C-17, C-130J or A-400M. You have been all over the map on your numbers, none of which you ever substantiated. It is your remarks that have been "remarkable".

The pricing EADS is now DEMANDING from its European customers seems to be based on the basic model, and higher for each added capability that was originally promised and contracted for. We shall find out tomorrow from the meetings in Berlin just how much France, Germany, UK, Spain, and the rest of the European customers folded in front of the EADS threats to put their citizens out of work.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Recent programs like the A330F, A380 and A320/A330 enhancements give me confidence this will be an excellent aircraft too & the market looks bright.

Todate, I agree the A-330F program is a success. The A-380 is far from a success, it is still more than two years behind on deliverys. It is even further from making a profit. I noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success. The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG.

Even if the A-400M begins flying before 31 Dec. 2009, it still has a very long way to go during and after the flight test period. Once in service with the different EUAFs it will still need to go through the OT&E testing as well as other early programs and testing. Here is just a peice of what the C-17 had to go through back in 1993 when it began operational and training with the USAF.

http://www.military.com/news/article...assignment.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:20 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18):
Yes, but the C-17 and A400M aren't in the same class, are they?

This is what several frequent posters to this forum can't seem to understand.

The C-130, the C-17 and the A400M all have different missions. If you try to have one airframe do the two different missions, you end up with it not doing either of them efficiently.

The C-130 is a technical transport designed to replace the C-119 and C-123.

The C-17 is a large transport designed to replace the C-141.

Airbus has designed the A-400M to fit right between the C-130 and the C-17 because of EU politicians.

Because the EU politicians destine the military they want to spend as little money on military equipment as possible. So in their faulty thinking, if the A-400M is sized between the C-130 and the C-17 it will be able to preform the mission of both.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
It is even further from making a profit

Not true. To break even is not the same as making a profit. Airbus took the massive write-off of program development costs which means that basically every A380 delivered is money in the bank and contributes to pay for the normal development costs. With now more than 200 copies sold, the still quite young program is moving towards the right direction.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success.

The program was withdrawn by Airbus caused by the delays. The plane by itself would have performed way better than expected, as have the passenger versions of the A380.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

She is selling like hot cakes in the many thousands of numbers, is better and more comfortable then the B737-NG, and further major improvements are underway. (also for the B737-NG several improvements are being developed). So I would not call that a death struggle which insinuates that the A320-program is severely threatened. Well, i can tell you, it is not.  Wink It is a healthy competition with the modernized B737-platform which by itself is still holding her own quite well, despite some set backs like for example the smaller and noisier cabin.
 
overcast
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:33 pm

Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:47 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG.

Surely even you can't believe that?  faint 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success.

 rotfl 
Great sentence.......

Quoting Overcast (Reply 28):
Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

Great piece of photoshopping by FI......
I presume will be the stock response..

Rgds
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:42 pm



Quoting 474218 (Reply 26):
Airbus has designed the A-400M to fit right between the C-130 and the C-17 because of EU politicians.

The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armored vehicles like the German Puma's, the UK's Piranha's, French Renault AMC's AGM guns as well as medium and attack helicopters and relief goods that are now transported by C-17's and hired Antonovs.

Further more it had to be able to use the civil airways above crowdy Europe (that is why the civil certification & big engines), be able refuel fast jets as well as helicopter and fly fast & low into hostile environments with passive sensors only and operate from soft airfields..

Such an aircraft doesn't exist and they are required yesterday for ongoing relief operations in MEA and the War against Terrorism. IMO the continued comments this is just a employment project and the C-17 will do are just.. well lets say it mildly, total ridiculous.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:38 am



Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
the C-17 has a few things over the A400M



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG

Please note: since some years and up until eternity any sold 737 did or will only happen in case of:
a. supplementary orders
b. or if the huge A320 backlog simply prevents timely deliveries

The 737 clearly struggles to win new customers. Since some years this happens very rarely and only in case b. (see above).
 
Jalap
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:25 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:53 am



Quoting Overcast (Reply 28):
Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

What a relief to see actual progress being made! Would love to see all 4 engines run on video and hear their sound! I suppose taxi tests are imminent and a video will follow shortly  Smile

I'm wondering, is this the largest Western prop plane ever built (not taking the Goose into account)?
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:34 pm



Quoting Jalap (Reply 32):
I'm wondering, is this the largest Western prop plane ever built (not taking the Goose into account)?

If you include old Russia not, but I think the engines are by far the most powerfull props ever developped in the west.

P.S. apparently a spotter sneaked onto the platform .. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4119004093_9e6a7abe64.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
overcast
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:58 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
P.S. apparently a spotter sneaked onto the platform .. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...4.jpg

Keesje,
That photo is a mirror image, so watch out for the Photoshop boys!  Smile
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:05 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armored vehicles like the German Puma's, the UK's Piranha's, French Renault AMC's AGM guns as well as medium and attack helicopters and relief goods that are now transported by C-17's and hired Antonovs.

I was reading that the Puma weighs 31.5 tons in basic form, and 43 tons in current form (due to extra armor). We know A400M is having problems hitting the documented 37 ton payload, rumors say it's 12 tons overweight with 5 tons of weight savings identified but not yet realized. So it seems the A400M will be very stretched to handle current requirements, not to mention future ones.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Further more it had to be able to use the civil airways above crowdy Europe (that is why the civil certification & big engines), be able refuel fast jets as well as helicopter and fly fast & low into hostile environments with passive sensors only and operate from soft airfields..

Can't wait to see the photos of the A400M off-loading a Puma down range on a soft airfield.

Should be, what, 3-4 years from now?

Then I'd like to see the picture of the second A400M landing and off-loading the Puma's armor, and the third photo of the German soldiers bolting the armor back onto the Puma.

Hopefully this isn't happening while they are under fire.

Sounds sub-optimal to me, but what do I know?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Such an aircraft doesn't exist and they are required yesterday for ongoing relief operations in MEA and the War against Terrorism. IMO the continued comments this is just a employment project and the C-17 will do are just.. well lets say it mildly, total ridiculous.

And I find the constant blind faith and unwillingness to accept and deal with any issues regarding the A400M program are just... well lets say it mildly, total ridiculous, but let's take the high road, shall we?

I don't think A400M is just a jobs program per se, but I do think almost all defense contracts can be looked on as being jobs programs at some level.

My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

And yes, they aren't the only program in that position, but that doesn't make it right.

While I'm glad to see all four turning and burning, current press reports aren't echoing all the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings that we are getting here on a.net.

So, to try to keep things balanced, here's a few press reports to chew on.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/11/18/afx7134977.html

Quote:

BERLIN, Nov 18 (Reuters) - Germany opposes any contractual changes to the delayed A400M military transporter project with European plane maker Airbus, a German government source familiar with the issue said on Wednesday.

A French official said on Saturday the contract could be handled in tranches with urgent needs tackled as a priority, including co-operation between states, where necessary, and some deliveries pushed back until a later date.

Germany has little willingness to compromise, however.

'No contractual changes,' is the German position, the government source told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...lsUtilitiesNews/idUSB5471920091118

Quote:

France, Germany want A400M financial gesture from EADS

PARIS, Nov 18 (Reuters) - France and Germany want a "financial gesture" from aerospace and defence group EADS (EAD.PA) on its much-delayed A400M military transport aircraft programme, German defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said on Wednesday.

Speaking after a meeting with French defence minister Herve Morin, zu Guttenberg said France and Germany had managed to reach a common position on the matter and agreed that the contract must be respected.

"Fidelity to the contract is not just semantics," he added.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...tent/nov2009/gb20091116_764351.htm

Quote:

Airbus Parent EADS Falls into the Red

The A400M was scheduled to take flight in March of this year, but in the call, Ring said he expected the plane to take its first flight at the end of the year. The delays could have an impact on EADS' fourth quarter results as well, the company said, as it renegotiates A400M contracts amid the delays. The company has already accrued EUR 2.4 billion in charges related to the A400M delays.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/185295.asp

Quote:

EADS reports loss, warns of fourth-quarter charges

The company said it could not give full-year earnings guidance "due to ongoing uncertainties on the magnitude of the potential A400M and A380 charges in the fourth quarter."

Much depends on negotiations with customers over the A400M, it said. "EADS intends to reduce any further potential loss, but the full financial consequences of the delays will only be known once the negotiations are finalized."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ead...ns-uncertain-on-charges-2009-11-16

Quote:

EADS swings to loss, no guidance for the year

The group has already taken 2.4 billion euros of charges on the A400M. Repeated delays and the ballooning cost of the program have led some of the customer countries to reconsider their participation. South Africa has cancelled its order for eight aircraft already. Should more countries cancel, the program could well be scrapped.

Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:27 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems. Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Anyway some will forever have a problem accepting the C-17 and C-130 do not meet the current operational requirements, budgets by a mile. That won't change, the market will.

I'm not saying the A400M suffers the "not invented here" syndrom like the A380, but a more objective look at the aircraft program wouldn't hurt it seems.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:00 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
It is even further from making a profit

Not true. To break even is not the same as making a profit. Airbus took the massive write-off of program development costs which means that basically every A380 delivered is money in the bank and contributes to pay for the normal development costs. With now more than 200 copies sold, the still quite young program is moving towards the right direction.

Eeeeh, yes, break even is the point just before a profit is made. The profit begins at the break even point airplane 1. The A-380 program costs some 10B Euros, and delivering some 20-25 airplanes (when most of the payments are made) is not even close to that.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
noticed you didn't mention the failed A-380F program as a success.

The program was withdrawn by Airbus caused by the delays. The plane by itself would have performed way better than expected, as have the passenger versions of the A380.

The program was withdrawn because Airbus couldn't get the passenger version off the ground, or even wire it correctly.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG



She is selling like hot cakes in the many thousands of numbers, is better and more comfortable then the B737-NG, and further major improvements are underway. (also for the B737-NG several improvements are being developed). So I would not call that a death struggle which insinuates that the A320-program is severely threatened. Well, i can tell you, it is not. It is a healthy competition with the modernized B737-platform which by itself is still holding her own quite well, despite some set backs like for example the smaller and noisier cabin.

The B-737NG is also selling like hot cakes. Like the A-32X, it has a 4 year long backlog.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
Quoting Overcast (Reply 28):
Looks like progress to FF is ramping up

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

obviously this is most opurtune with the meeting scheduled for today.

Great piece of photoshopping by FI......
I presume will be the stock response..

I couldn't get the FI link to work. But, I saw the picture in another reply.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Further more it had to be able to use the civil airways above crowdy Europe (that is why the civil certification & big engines), be able refuel fast jets as well as helicopter and fly fast & low into hostile environments with passive sensors only and operate from soft airfields..

Such an aircraft doesn't exist

That is correct, such an airplane does not exist.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
The A400M was specified for meeting tactical & strategic needs of EU members. It was sized to be able to carry the new generation of high tech armored vehicles like the German Puma's, the UK's Piranha's, French Renault AMC's AGM guns as well as medium and attack helicopters and relief goods that are now transported by C-17's and hired Antonovs.

It is going to have a difficult time carrying some of those vehicles. Nor can it carry the German or British MBT, but the C-17 can.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
The A-320 program is in a death struggle with the enhancements on the B-737NG

Please note: since some years and up until eternity any sold 737 did or will only happen in case of:
a. supplementary orders
b. or if the huge A320 backlog simply prevents timely deliveries

The 737 clearly struggles to win new customers. Since some years this happens very rarely and only in case b. (see above).

Just as the A-32X struggles for new customers. They are also selling supplemential orders to airlines that already are flying the A-32X.

Quoting Jalap (Reply 32):
I'm wondering, is this the largest Western prop plane ever built (not taking the Goose into account)?

No, that goes to the B-36. The Spruce Goose's props were bigger, but it never went into production. The B-36 props are bigger than the A-400M props, but both the Goose and B-36 had radial engines.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
P.S. apparently a spotter sneaked onto the platform .. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...4.jpg



Quoting Overcast (Reply 34):
Keesje,
That photo is a mirror image, so watch out for the Photoshop boys!

Keesje Is that you? Nice job with photoshop.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

Correct.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
I'm not saying the A400M suffers the "not invented here" syndrom like the A380, but a more objective look at the aircraft program wouldn't hurt it seems.

So, when are you going to take your own advise, or is that only intended for us on this side of the pond?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:15 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
My main issue with the A400M is the overpromise / underdeliver thing.

All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems.

Why do you think financial and operational/technical problems are not related?

What good is an airplane that won't be built because it's blown its budget (see A-12, VH-71)?

What good is an airplane that is so expensive you have to buy a much smaller number than the ones you are replacing (see Eurofighter, F-22)?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Now you are subjecting yourself to ridicule.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=aXZXv1GbZbEY&refer=europe

Quote:
According to the French Senate report, the aircraft frame is 12 tons overweight, reducing range or payload unless Airbus can fix it.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...blame-widely-for-a400m-delays.html

Quote:

The report, “L'Airbus militaire A400M sur le ‘chemin critique’ de l'Europe de la défense” (The A400M Military Airbus on the critical path for European defense) was jointly prepared by the Senate’s foreign affairs and finance committees, and released Feb. 10.



Quote:

Other salient points of the Senate report include:

-- Delivery of the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC), developed by the Hispano-Suiza unit of France’s Safran Group, is now tentatively scheduled for October 2009, assuming it obtains its civil certification in July. This is two years later than the contractual date of Oct. 30, 2007, and pushes delivery of the first A400M back to late 2012.

-- Delays in the navigation systems are at least as worrying as those of the engines. The Flight Management System (FMS), the GPS Air Data Inertial Reference System (GADIRS), the Terrain-Reference Navigation System (TRN) and the Terrain Masking Low Level Flight system (TM-LLF) all have experienced major development delay.

-- Empty weight will exceed specifications by 12 tonnes because of the airframe and mission systems are heavier than planned. However, EADS says payload will remain at 37 tonnes, which means landing performance may be degraded.

-- Only one or two aircraft will be delivered in 2013; delivery rates will only ramp up in 2014, and delays will not be fully caught up until 2020.

-- To speed deliveries, Airbus has offered to deliver an interim standard, which would not be capable of the more sophisticated flight modes, until avionics issues have been resolved. Delivered aircraft would subsequently be retrofitted to the full contractual standard.

-- The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

--- To date, partner governments have paid 5 billion euros into the program; Airbus has so far posted losses equivalent to 8% of this amount;

-- Governments refused to pay an extra 500 million euros for risk the reduction studies requested by industry, and Airbus Military says this led to development problems regarding the horizontal tail surfaces, the definition of the wing design, and weight estimates.

-- OCCAr, the international agency which manages the A400M program on behalf of participating governments, has been tasked with an audit whose conclusions should be completed by the end of February.

It appears to me that it is you who has selective memory. You continuously refuse to believe anything negative about the A400M, even when sources like Enders, Gallois and the French Senate's report are being used, they can't possibly be true.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Anyway some will forever have a problem accepting the C-17 and C-130 do not meet the current operational requirements, budgets by a mile.

You can't say such a thing till the true cost of A400M is determined. I've already shown one area where the A400M will have a hard time meeting operational requirements, and the trend towards heavier armored vehicles in the future works against A400M.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
A more objective look at the aircraft program wouldn't hurt it seems.

I hope you will take your own advice and do so.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:35 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Most of all, there is no competition (if you ignore Antonov).

Would that be the An-74?? Why hasn't this plane caught on more? Production, parts, mx, etc.?? All of the usual issues that Russian planes don't sell too well outside Russia?
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:28 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Eeeeh, yes, break even is the point just before a profit is made. The profit begins at the break even point airplane 1. The A-380 program costs some 10B Euros, and delivering some 20-25 airplanes (when most of the payments are made) is not even close to that.

Interestingly enough, the original contract that Airbus was granted had 5B EUR for the initial batch of 180 A400Ms and Airbus has already taken EUR 2.5B as writedowns, with Airbus hinting that more writedowns may happen once the renegotiation is over:

Quote:
EADS (FR:EAD 12.72, -0.34, -2.57%) said it is entering the "difficult last phase" of negotiations over its delayed A400M program and that the production plan for the A380 is under review after slower-than-expected progress in 2009.

As a result of uncertainties over those two programs, EADS said it couldn't give a forecast for EBIT for the year.

Gallois himself cites both A380 and A400M as concerns:

Quote:
"New programs require our utmost attention. Regarding A400M, we are working with our customers to reach an acceptable solution for all parties and to put this program on a solid long-term footing," said Chief Executive Louis Gallois.

"Additionally, the A380 program is still a matter of concern; industrial and financial reviews are underway," Gallois added.

Ref: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ead...ns-uncertain-on-charges-2009-11-16
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:07 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
It is going to have a difficult time carrying some of those vehicles. Nor can it carry the German or British MBT, but the C-17 can.

I guess there is little need for transporting MBT by air. Dozens go on a boot and there are trucks. It's an extreme niche. BTW great article again from Andrea, she knows her public & what they like to hear. Acid towards Airbus as usual..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
-- The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003). If that had happened to the C-17 the president should have ordered a national freeday incl BBQ for the US taxpayer.

Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/

Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CheetahC
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:06 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:13 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 39):
Would that be the An-74?? Why hasn't this plane caught on more? Production, parts, mx, etc.?? All of the usual issues that Russian planes don't sell too well outside Russia?

That would be the An-70, from the Ukraine.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:56 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems.

Oh, yes, let's focus on the technical problems.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Hmm, no mention of how I showed that the "someone somewhere" substantiating the technical problems was the French Senate.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003).

Hey, let's talk about the financial problems now!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

So the French Senate thinks the unit price will be around 215M USD.

And one of your favorite sources, AviationWeek, says:

Quote:
International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

Ref: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0on%20C-17%20Sales&channel=defense

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

Me:

Quote:
For those trying to figure out costs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

Not sure what to make of this, but:

8 / $6.2B = $775M per A-400M

8 / $3.9B = $475M per A-400M

No matter how you slice it, it's clearly no longer half a C-17 at half the cost.

Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:56 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
It is going to have a difficult time carrying some of those vehicles. Nor can it carry the German or British MBT, but the C-17 can.

I guess there is little need for transporting MBT by air. Dozens go on a boot and there are trucks. It's an extreme niche. BTW great article again from Andrea, she knows her public & what they like to hear. Acid towards Airbus as usual..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
-- The A400M%u2019s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today%u2019s prices.

Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003). If that had happened to the C-17 the president should have ordered a national freeday incl BBQ for the US taxpayer.

Canada paid $1.6 billion for 4 C-17s, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/

Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

I am, and so is Revelation. Of course you only have to sit there and ignor the facts.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
All the links you provided are about the financial negotiations. Who wants to bring additional billions these days, nobody! It seems you are trying to smoothly connect this to operational / technical problems.

Oh, yes, let's focus on the technical problems.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Somewhere someone here on a.net said the A400M 12t overweight, that has since been denied / could not be substantiated in any way. But that won't stop some bringing it up when it suits a preposition.

Hmm, no mention of how I showed that the "someone somewhere" substantiating the technical problems was the French Senate.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Wow 30% in 11 yrs including inflation (the program was launched in 2003).

Hey, let's talk about the financial problems now!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
The A400M’s unit price has increased from 110 million euros at 1998 prices to 145 million euros at today’s prices.

So the French Senate thinks the unit price will be around 215M USD.

And one of your favorite sources, AviationWeek, says:

Quote:
International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

Ref: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...fense



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Anyone insisting C-17 and A400M have about the same price?

Me:

Quote:
For those trying to figure out costs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8344722.stm

Quote:
[South African government spokesman Themba Maseko] said the planes would now cost 47bn rand ($6.2bn; £3.7bn), compared with 6.4bn rand when they were ordered.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d076ae-c...3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Quote:
Since 2005 when the contract was signed, costs have jumped from R17.6bn to over R30bn ($3.9bn).

Not sure what to make of this, but:

8 / $6.2B = $775M per A-400M

8 / $3.9B = $475M per A-400M

No matter how you slice it, it's clearly no longer half a C-17 at half the cost.

I insist on it too. You like to throw the international price of the C-17 around, then try to quote the domestic price of the A-400M for comparision. Well, I hate to break it to you, but the only surviving sale of the 4 A-400Ms to Malaysia, has now FORCED EADS to honor their 2005 contract.

It appears the "talks" between EADS and its EU customers have broken down, again. The meetings this week in Berlin provided EADS with no relief to the current contracts, and no new replacements contracts have been signed. Germany is holding EADS to its current contract. France, as usual wants to give into all of EADS's new demands. You may recall, it was France's President Charic who demanded the "Europens engine" only on the A-400M, even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go. France is going to be short sited, again in their current demands that Germany, UK, Turkey, Luxumbourg, Spain, and the Netherlands simply fold over and give EADS what ever they want to build the A-400M.

Do you know exactly what EADS is demanding from their European customers? They are demanding a BLANK and SIGNED CHECK from each of the 7 European customers.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/185843.asp?source=pimail

[Edited 2009-11-21 06:57:11]
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:58 pm

The Netherlands are not taking part in the A400M. They recently acquired several refurbished C-130s and took a stake in the newly acquired 3 C-17's which they share with other NATO countries.

The C-130s currently under refurbishement by Marshal Aerospace are very late and costs are rising BTW
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:17 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 45):
They recently acquired several refurbished C-130s and took a stake in the newly acquired 3 C-17's which they share with other NATO countries.

Out of curiosity, why refurbished? C-130's are used extensively by all users and new one are easily availabe at higher cost, but based on the life of the frame, in the long run may be cheaper.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:55 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 45):
The Netherlands are not taking part in the A400M.

My mistake, I should have written Belgium, who, IIRC has 7 or 8 A-400Ms on order.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:02 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
even though P&W of Canada had an engine ready to go.

Do you recall what engine? I thought nothing close to the requirements exist(ed). How could it have been any better.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
They are demanding a BLANK and SIGNED CHECK from each of the 7 European customers.

OMG are you sure?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects

Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:38 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 48):
Do you recall what engine? I thought nothing close to the requirements exist(ed). How could it have been any better.

My google searches say its the PW180, as for the specifications, these are on paper and once the political decision was made to use a local product, I'm certain the specifications when reviewed would show that the PW180 did not hack it, wish other countries would learn from the Europeans and get their act together, this forum would calm down with all the tanker and helicopter talk  Smile
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GDB and 8 guests