User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:29 pm

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

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

Quote:

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

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

It goes on to say that SA will reuse the money for military transports, but on a much smaller scale than their planned $5.2B A400M purchase, due to economic concerns.
Inspiration, move me brightly! 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!
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:33 pm

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

Given the amount, this is presumably a deposit.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:32 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...90&subject=economic&action=article
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:50 pm

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

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

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

Agreed.
Inspiration, move me brightly! 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: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:01 am

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

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

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

Like their European customers, EADS no longer is under contract from SA. EADS essentially tore up those contracts EU for the A-400M, and SA notified them they had torn up their contract. Right now, in reality, EADS only has 4 orders for the A-400M, all for Malasya.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:40 am

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

Your statements never cease to amaze me. But I don't actually know whether I should laugh or cry...
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:01 pm

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

Interesting.

Meanwhile in South Africa:

SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano in the same month confirmed the service still has a need for an airlifter with a cargo bay larger in width and height than the Lockheed Martin C130 Hercules. Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...rt-&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159


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

Ouch. Better quickly dismiss me, the source, website, timing, or whatever, right?   
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:20 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Interesting.

Meanwhile in South Africa:

SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano in the same month confirmed the service still has a need for an airlifter with a cargo bay larger in width and height than the Lockheed Martin C130 Hercules. Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...rt-&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159


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

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

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

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

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

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...90&subject=economic&action=article
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:22 pm

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

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

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

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

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

The UK is a A400M launch customer / co producer  
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:44 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK is a A400M launch customer / co producer

Correct, but doesn't Spain want to take the wing production away from the UK and build them in Spain? If that happens, what will happen to the UK order for 25 A-400Ms? Oops, I guess I should stop using the "M" at the end of "A-400M", as EADS is now going to build a "simiplier" airlifter, at higher costs.
 
flyingwaeldar
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:10 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:06 am

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

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

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

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

Btw, is there a competition how many A-400M threads one can open in the shortest possible time?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:25 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Great question. But the same question can be asked about the current status of the KC-X program, EADS/NG drop out of that bid process, or the KC-767NG, too. What is good for the goose (A-400M) is also good for the gander (KC-767NG). That is debating those programs.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:48 pm

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

They were indeed cancelled last year. They remained in the books, because the deposits were paid for when the embargo kicked in.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:02 pm

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

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

Thanks for the update on the Iraqi airplanes. But what about returning the SA deposits?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:12 pm

I guess SA will not only get their money back, but also another "present" by having their workshare taken away.  
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:41 pm

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

My guess is SA has already taken the loss of producing some A-400 parts into account. They never reall had more than a few small peices around the wingtips anyway.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:36 pm

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

I have to agree with your proposal of putting some old used ones on the FMS market. I mean, the USAF is basically trading out C-17s for the C-5 now which is total BS. Great going Congress!
 
flyingwaeldar
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:10 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:26 am

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

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

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

It will indeed be interesting how this story develops and in which direction they go.
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:10 pm

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

Airbus then and since has vehemently denied this.

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

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


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


http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...-hold-talks-about-a400m-2010-03-16
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:19 pm

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What doesn't EADS understand?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:20 pm

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

Where its going to find the money apparently.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:52 pm

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

In the AWST article that Lumberton provided:

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

says:

Quote:

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


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

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

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

A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations (by Revelation Mar 16 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Inspiration, move me brightly! 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: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:28 pm

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

SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano in the same month confirmed the service still has a need for an airlifter with a cargo bay larger in width and height than the Lockheed Martin C130 Hercules. Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...d=159

The SAA is quoted as stating the Hercules is to small and C-17 to big/expensive. The A400M tanker capability is key for the SAA (Gripens) .
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:19 pm

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

SAAF chief Lieutenant General Carlo Gagiano in the same month confirmed the service still has a need for an airlifter with a cargo bay larger in width and height than the Lockheed Martin C130 Hercules. Among Western aircraft only the A400M and the Boeing C17 Globemaster III fit that bill. Gagiano however ruled out the later on grounds of cost and size.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...d=159

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I don't think options #6 through #10 are viable, but you never know.
 
CheetahC
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:06 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:59 pm

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

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

This leaves the C-130, A-400 and C-17 as the only real options, of these only the A-400 is large enough AND can double as an inflight refueling tanker. The C-130 is too small, the C-17 is overkill and the A-400 is just right, but we might only be able to afford the C-130. In this case the government will either have to review foreign commitments or continue to charter aircraft as needed.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:41 am

Well, even though it is smaller, the C-130J can do everything the A-400 can, and more if needed. I am also not convinced you cannot modify a C-17 to accept WARPs. It would be able to off-load more fuel than the A-400 can if you installed bladder tanks in the cargo compartment, like the A-400 plans and the KC-130 does.
 
flyingwaeldar
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:10 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:19 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Well, even though it is smaller, the C-130J can do everything the A-400 can, and more if needed.

Do you mean that despite a smaller cross section the C-130J can carry the same sized cargo as the A-400M and that it has the same or bigger max. payload?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I am also not convinced you cannot modify a C-17 to accept WARPs. It would be able to off-load more fuel than the A-400 can if you installed bladder tanks in the cargo compartment, like the A-400 plans and the KC-130 does.

But this would have to be designed and certified first and would surely increase the price of the C-17 significantly.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
1. Reorder the A-400, at a much lower price

Or 11. Reorder the A-400M in smaller numbers if you don't have the money. Maybe some money can be saved when leaving out some of the bells and whistles.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:01 am

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I wonder if EADS was waiting for the A400M "deal" to be reached, or if they are also thinking of "seeking damages" from SA?

The A400M deal was two way, SA order the aircraft, and EADS provide work packages to the SA aerospace industry.
SA still has its work packages.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Canada operates 4 C-17s, and their military forces are about the same size and budget as SA.

Canada operates more peace keeping missions than any other country, most of the peace keeping missions are on the other side of the globe from them. South Africa wanted the A400M for working within Africa, where it operates the C-130 and IL-76 now, and 707 previously. They also wanted the aircraft to replace the tanker capability that the 707 left behind, the squadron that was to operate the A400M was the same squadron that operated the 707 tankers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Yes, we have and the latests costs numbers for domestic sales is $202M for the C-17, and $196M for the A-400M.

No, the base airframe cost of the A400M is around 76 million EUR, the contracts are in EUR, and most countries buying them are EUR based. The huge depreciation of the US$ over the last 10 years is not a factor for these countries.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
They never reall had more than a few small peices around the wingtips anyway.

More rubbish, they have work packages on the centre and outer wing box, wing fuselage fairing, nose fuselage, vertical tail plane, and fuselage furnishing. They are working on these in conjunction with UK, France, and Germany.

Quoting keesje (Reply 18):
Last October, the then CEO of the country%u2019s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, asserted that the acquisition costs for South Africa for all eight A400Ms had soared from R17-billion to R47-billion %u2013 an increase of R30-billion (roughly %u20AC2,8-billion) for South Africa alone.

The the ARSCOR CEO got fired for making those comments as it was later revealed that they were false and misleading. The South African Air force published in 2004 the cost of 8 aircraft package (i.e. aircraft ++) was €837 million.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Well, even though it is smaller, the C-130J can do everything the A-400 can, and more if needed.

Rubbish, the C-130 needs to be heavily modified to do the roles that the A400M can do out of the box, for example a MC-130H cost $155 million in 2001 (US$190 million in 2010 dollars) http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=115 . The MC-130H still does not have the speed, range, payload, or capability of the A400M.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:47 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Yes, we have and the latests costs numbers for domestic sales is $202M for the C-17, and $196M for the A-400M.

No, the base airframe cost of the A400M is around 76 million EUR, the contracts are in EUR, and most countries buying them are EUR based. The huge depreciation of the US$ over the last 10 years is not a factor for these countries.

Revelation calaculated that after recent cost rises the price would be around E130 million per aircraft. It depends on which Euro- Dollar rate you take how much that is. Under $200 million anyway.

The latest USAF prices (useally lower than exports) I got are from this recent report. http://www.c17foramerica.com/pdf/CRS_Report_For_Congress.pdf

FY 2009 The Air Force unfunded priority list contained a request for $3.9 billion to purchase an additional 15 C-
17s, which was met by supplemental appropriations.


2009: $260.000.000 per C-17.

FY2008. The President requested $653 million to fund C-17s but, did not request additional aircraft. Authorizers provided $2.28 billion to purchase eight additional C-17s under Title XV and enabled the Air Force to contribute one aircraft to NATO’s proposed Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership (P.L. 110-181).

2008: $285.000.000 per C-17.

All non recurring costs on the C-17 have already been spend / spread out over the 180 aircraft delivered sofar. Parts are excluded, those are in seperate fleetwide support contracts.

If you take the C-17 total development & purchasing costs to the taxpayer over the last 30 years, the total is above $350 per aircraft. But those are very old dollars, correct this for inflation and you get some extreme unit costs.. But as said those would be irrelevant for the SAA. I guess they would pay around $300 million like the Australians, Nato, Brits and Canadians.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:04 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Revelation calaculated that after recent cost rises the price would be around E130 million per aircraft. It depends on which Euro- Dollar rate you take how much that is.

I have seen nothing to suggest that the additional funding EADS has tentatively been offered has in fact changed the purchase price of the A400Ms at all. A bit like how the automotive industry in the US received funding last year did little to change the price of vehicles.
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: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:16 pm

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

It's not just Airbus, Lockheed still has eight (8) Libyan C-130's, built and paid for in the 1970's, stored at the their Marietta facility.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:09 pm

Quoting Flyingwaeldar (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Well, even though it is smaller, the C-130J can do everything the A-400 can, and more if needed.

Do you mean that despite a smaller cross section the C-130J can carry the same sized cargo as the A-400M and that it has the same or bigger max. payload?

It can carry helios (more disassembly is required), it can refuel, it can land on unimproved runways, and can fly low level TA missions (some can do TFR). I said nothing of the C-130J carrying up to 37 tonnes of cargo.

Quoting Flyingwaeldar (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I am also not convinced you cannot modify a C-17 to accept WARPs. It would be able to off-load more fuel than the A-400 can if you installed bladder tanks in the cargo compartment, like the A-400 plans and the KC-130 does.

But this would have to be designed and certified first and would surely increase the price of the C-17 significantly.

Since the C-17 does not have a civil certification, all that would be required is air refueling flight testing. BTW, the B-707 also never had a civil STR for air refueling.

Quoting Flyingwaeldar (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
1. Reorder the A-400, at a much lower price

Or 11. Reorder the A-400M in smaller numbers if you don't have the money. Maybe some money can be saved when leaving out some of the bells and whistles.

How would that help them when the minimum requirement was for 8 A-400s? They also had options on another 6 airframes. IIRC, all the SAAF wanted was cargo lift, unimproved field capability and air refueling. They already left out some bells and whistles that Germany wanted.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Canada operates 4 C-17s, and their military forces are about the same size and budget as SA.

Canada operates more peace keeping missions than any other country, most of the peace keeping missions are on the other side of the globe from them. South Africa wanted the A400M for working within Africa, where it operates the C-130 and IL-76 now, and 707 previously. They also wanted the aircraft to replace the tanker capability that the 707 left behind, the squadron that was to operate the A400M was the same squadron that operated the 707 tankers.

Correct.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Yes, we have and the latests costs numbers for domestic sales is $202M for the C-17, and $196M for the A-400M.

No, the base airframe cost of the A400M is around 76 million EUR, the contracts are in EUR, and most countries buying them are EUR based. The huge depreciation of the US$ over the last 10 years is not a factor for these countries.

????, I have never scene a price of 76M Euros. The lowest price EADS was charging was 108M Euros, and more for the export versions as they included packages. Even Malasya is paying some $177M USD each for their 4 A-400s. That price includes the packages.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Well, even though it is smaller, the C-130J can do everything the A-400 can, and more if needed.

Rubbish, the C-130 needs to be heavily modified to do the roles that the A400M can do out of the box, for example a MC-130H cost $155 million in 2001 (US$190 million in 2010 dollars) http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=115 . The MC-130H still does not have the speed, range, payload, or capability of the A400M.

Even though the C-130H version is still offered by LM, I don't think they have had any "H" orders in years. The USMC KC-130J costs some $67M for the basic airframe and another $20M for the air refueling package, bringing the total to some $87M-$90M each. The C-130J, in all versions is some 20% faster than the C-130H in all its versions. The C-130J has the range to reach all of Africa from SA with a 20 tonne payload.

Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
The latest USAF prices (useally lower than exports) I got are from this recent report. http://www.c17foramerica.com/pdf/CRS_Report_For_Congress.pdf

FY 2009 The Air Force unfunded priority list contained a request for $3.9 billion to purchase an additional 15 C-
17s, which was met by supplemental appropriations.

2009: $260.000.000 per C-17.

FY2008. The President requested $653 million to fund C-17s but, did not request additional aircraft. Authorizers provided $2.28 billion to purchase eight additional C-17s under Title XV and enabled the Air Force to contribute one aircraft to NATO’s proposed Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership (P.L. 110-181).

2008: $285.000.000 per C-17.

Keesje, are you saying that in 1 year, the price of the C-17 dropped $25M?

Why don't you include the rest of those paragraphs? They clearly say some $935M of the price is just for upgrades to the fleet. BTW, the current USAF fleet of C-17s is around 213 airframes, not 180.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Revelation calaculated that after recent cost rises the price would be around E130 million per aircraft. It depends on which Euro- Dollar rate you take how much that is.

I have seen nothing to suggest that the additional funding EADS has tentatively been offered has in fact changed the purchase price of the A400Ms at all.

Then why does EADS want to rewrite the contracts, and has stated they will except no more than a 10 airplane reduction in total EU production? EADS has publicly stated they want between a 10% and a 30% price per unti price increase. EADS has also publicly stated the initial aircraft will not have all the different capabilities the different EU country customers want, and some capabilities will never be reached. EADS has not said what those capabilities may be, but I suspect it will be things that are harder to do like the low level TFR flying capability and possibly air refueling, along with max range with max payload weight.

We shall all see as EADS and the customers arrive at new contracts.

All of this has nothing to do with SA getting their money back. I believe they are intitled to a refund. I believe that SA really does not care much about the in country work they do for building A-400 parts, as that production capability can easily move to Spain, the UK, or somewhere else in Europe.

It seems SA is ready to move ahead with what ever they will do to replace the A-400 order, as I said in reply # 23, they have other options which includ a reorder with EADS. But they need/want their money back, first.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:59 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
I have never scene a price of 76M Euros.

I have not seen it in a scene of a movie or play either, seen is the past tense of see.

In all seriousness, you are right, I was out by a couple of million, have a look on Google for "€78.21 A400M" and you will find references to the A400M base price. That was the price in 2003, at the time that was converting to around US$89 million.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Even Malasya is paying some $177M USD each for their 4 A-400s

It was reported in December 2005 when the aircraft were ordered that the total package was worth RM2.6 billion, and the following year the Malaysian government stated that the aircraft component was RM 2 billion, and in return Malaysia is getting RM1 billion in work packages.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Even though the C-130H version is still offered by LM, I don't think they have had any "H" orders in years. The USMC KC-130J costs some $67M for the basic airframe and another $20M for the air refueling package, bringing the total to some $87M-$90M each. The C-130J, in all versions is some 20% faster than the C-130H in all its versions. The C-130J has the range to reach all of Africa from SA with a 20 tonne payload.

A C-103J out of the box cannot do what a MC-130H can do, as I stated before, to get the capabilities that the A400M has out of the box the C-130 needs to be heavily modified. The C-130 has "old" avionics and systems, and to get them integrated into a digital mission planning system like on the A400M would be very very expensive (just look at the cost of the C-130 AMP program). It would be like retrofitting the 767 with 787 systems, FBW, and avionics. If it is not designed that way from the start, to retrofit is very expensive.

Can you give me an idea of what current production military helicopter will fit inside the C-130 ? All my reading of the C-130, I cannot recall ever seeing a helicopter payload being shown.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Then why does EADS want to rewrite the contracts, and has stated they will except no more than a 10 airplane reduction in total EU production?

As far as I understand, the contracts are not changing. The additional funding that the EU have tentatively offered was for R&D, and it comprises a repayable and non-repayable portions. The procurement contracts will cover the production costs of the airframe, no price increase is required there.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:04 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Revelation calaculated that after recent cost rises the price would be around E130 million per aircraft.

That presumed the production run would be 180 frames, which we don't really know for sure. EADS has asked the countries to keep their order at 170 frames or greater, but we don't really know if they will. FR is committing to taking all 50, DE and UK are both saying they are evaluating the size of their orders in the face of severe budget pressure.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):

I have seen nothing to suggest that the additional funding EADS has tentatively been offered has in fact changed the purchase price of the A400Ms at all. A bit like how the automotive industry in the US received funding last year did little to change the price of vehicles.

EADS says:

Quote:

Customer Nations and EADS have come to a principle agreement regarding the A400M military transport aircraft with the intention to amend the original contract accordingly in the coming weeks. In this principle agreement, the Customer Nations agree to

* Increase the price of the contract by €2 billion;

* Waive all liquidated damages related to current delays;

* Provide an additional amount of €1.5 billion in exchange for a participation in future export sales (Export Levy Facilities).

* Accelerate pre-delivery payments in the period of 2010 to 2014, a new schedule of which will be finalised in the amended contract;


Ref: http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20100305_a400m.html

So EUR 2B is an "increase in price" whereas EUR 1.5B is a cash advance paid back via (potential) export sales.

I personally doubt the ELF will be paid back, certainly not in any time frame that a commercial bank would agree to, so to me it's also an increase in price that the customers will have to pay to stay in the A400M program.
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
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:37 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):

I suspect you do not understand the contractual arrangement. The A400M is a OCCAR project, OCCAR have the customers, and EADS is the prime contractor to OCCAR.

http://www.occar-ea.org/view.php?nid=75
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: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:54 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
A C-103J out of the box cannot do what a MC-130H can do,

The C-130J is not intended to what the MC-130H can do, they have two different missions. Just like the WC-130J, KC-130J, LC-130H, AC-130E, EC-130V and dozens of other specilized C-130 built over the years, they all have different missions. Meanwhile Airbus is struggling just to build the standard A-400M. For the A400M to have the capability of the MC-130H or any missionized version of the C-130 millions of Euro's in modifications will be required.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:16 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 35):
Meanwhile Airbus is struggling just to build the standard A-400M.

They have two complete test frames now. Be a bit like saying Boeing is struggling to build a 787 or 747-8, they are in flight test phase, not full swing production.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 35):
For the A400M to have the capability of the MC-130H or any missionized version of the C-130 millions of Euro's in modifications will be required.

The A400M was designed to have all the capabilities that the MC-130H has, and also exceeds it. For example the terrain following capabilities are lower than the MC-130H, and the refueling envelope is much larger than the MC-130H.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:39 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
The additional funding that the EU have tentatively offered was for R&D, and it comprises a repayable and non-repayable portions. The procurement contracts will cover the production costs of the airframe, no price increase is required there.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
Can you give me an idea of what current production military helicopter will fit inside the C-130 ?

The standard C-130E/H/J can carry 2 RAH-70s (disassembled) (Bell-407), 2 OH-58s types (disassembled), or 2 AH/MH-6s (disassembled), or one of each type in a more assembled state (but I believe in all cases the rotor heads must be removed). The C-130J-30 can carry those helios and personnel to fly/reassemble them.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mh-6.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/arh.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/oh-58.htm
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:43 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 36):
The A400M was designed to have all the capabilities that the MC-130H has, and also exceeds it. For example the terrain following capabilities are lower than the MC-130H, and the refueling envelope is much larger than the MC-130H.

"Was designed to have" but has it proven it is capable of actually accomplishing what it "was designed to do"? The A400M is still years away from operational service so its capabilities are still unknown.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 36):
They have two complete test frames now.

Lockheed has built 2300 plus C-130's. It capabilites are will know.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
The additional funding that the EU have tentatively offered was for R&D, and it comprises a repayable and non-repayable portions. The procurement contracts will cover the production costs of the airframe, no price increase is required there.

Sorry, I forgot to respond to Zeke before I posted reply # 37.

While some production costs are non-recurring costs, others are not. The 2003 pricing info on the A-400 was before any contracts were signed, all were signed in 2005 or 2006. We currently do not have a firm idea of when LRIP will begin, it may be sometime in late 2011 or early 2012, but no one has confirmed that. Nor has the delivery of production A-400 #1 to France has been firmly nailed down. When the A-400 began flight testing last December, it was widly believed the first production airplane was to have been delivered in late 2012, but all that has changed now, along with the unit price, which can be as low as 130M Euros and as high as 180 Euros. That is a very wide spread in price.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:57 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
I suspect you do not understand the contractual arrangement. The A400M is a OCCAR project, OCCAR have the customers, and EADS is the prime contractor to OCCAR.

Seems like a addtional level of needless bureaucracy, but then again since the whole A400M program is a "make work" project it fits right in.

Another little item I saw on the business page today. Lockheed and the Canadian Forces have agreed on a June 2010 delivery date for Canada's first CC-130J. That is six months early.
 
CheetahC
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:06 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:23 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
It can carry helios (more disassembly is required), it can refuel, it can land on unimproved runways, and can fly low level TA missions (some can do TFR). I said nothing of the C-130J carrying up to 37 tonnes of cargo.

While the Oryx/Super Puma does fit into the C-130, another flight/aircraft is then required to transport the equipment needed to reassemble the helicopter. Obviously the helicopter is not available immediately and a lot more personnel are required.
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:37 pm

I think a C130 can transport 3 F16s, fully disassembled..

What are we doing defending, that a C130 can do anything a A400M can, why? Odd.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Keesje, are you saying that in 1 year, the price of the C-17 dropped $25M?

I'm saying nothing. I quote the congress report and wonder if you next week will again claim the A400M now costs us much as a C-17..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:53 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
I suspect you do not understand the contractual arrangement. The A400M is a OCCAR project, OCCAR have the customers, and EADS is the prime contractor to OCCAR.

Go ahead then and tell me what type of misunderstanding you suspect me of having.

Note that even EADS didn't bother to mention OCCAR in their press release:

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20100305_a400m.html

Surely you are more correct, but also surely there's not much importance to the fact that the customers have an umbrella organization to represent them, since that organization will merely forward the bills to the customers.

The customers will ultimately be getting the bill for the EUR 2B price increase, for the early pre-delivery payments and for the EUR 1.5B Export Levy Facility whose exact structure is yet to be determined. I don't really see how you or anyone else could see a third party wanting a piece of that action since there are so many other better things to do with EUR 1.5B so clearly it'll be up to the A400M customers to fund it, whether or not they use OCCAR to manage that activity. OCCAR has no independent source of revenue. Also the customers will not be getting the liquidated damages related to current delays nor will OCCAR.
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!
 
flyingwaeldar
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:10 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:30 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
It can carry helios (more disassembly is required), it can refuel, it can land on unimproved runways, and can fly low level TA missions (some can do TFR). I said nothing of the C-130J carrying up to 37 tonnes of cargo.

And here I thought when you said "everything" you meant "everything", but in reality it seems you meant "everything, but...". Or am I mistaken again?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
How would that help them when the minimum requirement was for 8 A-400s? They also had options on another 6 airframes. IIRC, all the SAAF wanted was cargo lift, unimproved field capability and air refueling. They already left out some bells and whistles that Germany wanted.

I seems they found out that they don't even have enough money to follow the original plan, so compromises must be made. If they are still intersted in the A-400M they have to either reduce the number of planes or leave out some more capabilities.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 40):
Seems like a addtional level of needless bureaucracy, but then again since the whole A400M program is a "make work" project it fits right in.

That old argument again that EADS is nothing else than a job creation program for some European countries. Some a.net myth never die.................
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:37 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
The standard C-130E/H/J can carry 2 RAH-70s (disassembled) (Bell-407), 2 OH-58s types (disassembled), or 2 AH/MH-6s (disassembled), or one of each type in a more assembled state (but I believe in all cases the rotor heads must be removed). The C-130J-30 can carry those helios and personnel to fly/reassemble them.

Fairly light small machines, I suspect they could be carried in normal commercial freighters. Are any still in production ?

Quoting 474218 (Reply 38):
"Was designed to have" but has it proven it is capable of actually accomplishing what it "was designed to do"? The A400M is still years away from operational service so its capabilities are still unknown.

Yes, that seems to be the line people make when the aircraft is flight testing. We had people on here saying the KC-30 boom did not work, now that is has done its flight testing it all of a sudden works.

It would be more appropriate to think that the capabilities have been designed into the airframe, it is just a matter of time now when the flight test program ticks them off the list. That is of course unless you have something to suggest that the capabilities were removed from the design.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
The 2003 pricing info on the A-400 was before any contracts were signed, all were signed in 2005 or 2006.

No, the OCCAR contract was signed in May 2003, it was a EUR 20 billion fixed-price development and production contract.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Go ahead then and tell me what type of misunderstanding you suspect me of having.

OCCAR have the contract with EADS not any of the EU member countries, it is OCCAR that is doing the contract negotiations, it is OCCAR that can cancel the project.

http://www.occar-ea.org/view.php?nid=75

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...a400m-termination-clause-eads.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rogress-made-in-talks-to-save.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKWEA143120090310
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:39 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 45):
OCCAR have the contract with EADS not any of the EU member countries, it is OCCAR that is doing the contract negotiations, it is OCCAR that can cancel the project.

And yet EADS own press release starts with:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
Customer Nations and EADS have come to a principle agreement regarding the A400M military transport

And not "OCCAR and EADS".

OCCAR is an umbrella organization created as a legal convenience. It has no choice but to act according to the customer's will, because the customers control the purse strings.

I stand by what I said before, you are more correct to mention OCCAR, but I still don't see any point to doing so, it's a distinction of little to no significance because OCCAR does not have any power, the customers do. Even EADS is acknowledging this by the way they word their press releases.
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
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:09 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):
OCCAR is an umbrella organization created as a legal convenience.

I am sure that is what Americans want to think, just like setting up the EU and the EURO. OCCAR member nations have no contract with EADS for the A400M. Any agreement reached will have to be between OCCAR and EADS.

As member nations are represented by and constitute OCCAR, the EADS press release is correct.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:15 pm

Quoting CheetahC (Reply 41):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
It can carry helios (more disassembly is required), it can refuel, it can land on unimproved runways, and can fly low level TA missions (some can do TFR). I said nothing of the C-130J carrying up to 37 tonnes of cargo.

While the Oryx/Super Puma does fit into the C-130, another flight/aircraft is then required to transport the equipment needed to reassemble the helicopter. Obviously the helicopter is not available immediately and a lot more personnel are required.

Isn't that the case with the A-400, too?

Quoting keesje (Reply 42):
I think a C130 can transport 3 F16s, fully disassembled..

You have a weird sense of humor.

Quoting keesje (Reply 42):
What are we doing defending, that a C130 can do anything a A400M can, why? Odd.

We are defending it because it is true, the C-130 can do everything the A-400 is claimed to be able to do, airlift, air drop, air refueling, low level flying, etc. The C-130 can even do somethings the A-400 is not currently designed to do, like gunship, air/sea rescue, hurricane hunting, daisy cutter/MOAB bombing, tactical/strategic reconn, electronic warfare, SpecOps, etc. No, I am not saying the A-400 cannot be developed further to do those missions, it is just not in the design or mission specs. right now.

As the A-400 stands today, and with its planned future missions (if it can achieve them), it is not a versitial an airplane as the C-130 is. The only real difference between the C-130 and A-400 is the EADS airplane can carry bigger cargo items and more weight. But, I suspect most of its cargo missions will be around the 20 tonne mark to get some usable range out of it. At the max cvargo weight of 37 tonnes, the A-400 is not trans-Atlantic in its range, to do that it must be carrying 30 tonnes, or less of cargo.

Quoting keesje (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Keesje, are you saying that in 1 year, the price of the C-17 dropped $25M?

I'm saying nothing. I quote the congress report and wonder if you next week will again claim the A400M now costs us much as a C-17..

Here is what you posted.

Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
FY 2009 The Air Force unfunded priority list contained a request for $3.9 billion to purchase an additional 15 C-
17s, which was met by supplemental appropriations.

2009: $260.000.000 per C-17.

FY2008. The President requested $653 million to fund C-17s but, did not request additional aircraft. Authorizers provided $2.28 billion to purchase eight additional C-17s under Title XV and enabled the Air Force to contribute one aircraft to NATO’s proposed Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership (P.L. 110-181).

2008: $285.000.000 per C-17.

What you did not quote was some of the money for the C-17 was not for buying production aircraft, some money was for upgrades, upgrade testing, and spares.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 45):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
The standard C-130E/H/J can carry 2 RAH-70s (disassembled) (Bell-407), 2 SA)">OH-58s types (disassembled), or 2 AH/MH-6s (disassembled), or one of each type in a more assembled state (but I believe in all cases the rotor heads must be removed). The C-130J-30 can carry those helios and personnel to fly/reassemble them.

Fairly light small machines, I suspect they could be carried in normal commercial freighters. Are any still in production ?
Quoting CheetahC (Reply 41):
the Oryx/Super Puma does fit into the C-130,

I suspect, you are right, Zeke, these helios can also go aboard a commerical freighter, but you did not ask about that. The RAH-70, and AH/MH-6J/M is still in production for the US Army. I believe the SA)">OH-58 is long out of production.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 45):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
The 2003 pricing info on the A-400 was before any contracts were signed, all were signed in 2005 or 2006.

No, the OCCAR contract was signed in May 2003, it was a EUR 20 billion fixed-price development and production contract.

The EU customers did not place their orders until 2005 and 2006 with OCCAR/EADS. The international orders for Malasya and SA were placed directly with EADS, and not through OCCAR.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9854
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SA Still Waits For A400M Refund

Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:42 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
The EU customers did not place their orders until 2005 and 2006 with OCCAR/EADS.

No it was May 2003

Quote:
The contract was signed in Bonn, Germany between Airbus Military and OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d’Armement), the procurement organisation representing the launch customers.

Representing a twenty-year programme for the European military aircraft industry, the A400M contract provides for a total of 180 aircraft to be delivered to the launch customers as follows: Belgium, 7; France, 50; Germany, 60; Luxembourg, 1; Spain, 27; Turkey, 10; United Kingdom, 25.

from http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...v/2003/2003/en_20030527_a400m.html

That is why the current press release linked in reply 33 mentioned "Increase the price of the contract by €2 billion;", that is the contract between OCCAR and EADS, not EADS and the member nations.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
The international orders for Malasya and SA were placed directly with EADS, and not through OCCAR.

That is correct, EADS had only 3 customers, OCCAR (180) , South Africa (8), and Malaysia (4).
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests