|Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):|
I'm wondering why this type of info is not being discussed in the press?
I think it has, however mainly in the South African press, not US, e.g.
"Nevertheless, the work packages mean that South Africa’s cancellation of the A400M is a complex issue. Further, it is now known that the cost increase for the aircraft for this country alleged by the then CEO of South Africa’s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, last October – from R17-billion to R47-billion, or an increase of R30-billion (roughly €2,8-billion) for this country alone – was grossly exaggerated. In addition, the South African Air Force (SAAF) still needs new transport and tanker aircraft (for the available options, see Engineering News May 14, 2010). So the two parties are still talking to each other about the A400M."
"Airbus Military, manufacturer of the A400M military transport and tanker aircraft, has told predominantly State-owned South African aerospace company Denel Saab Aerostructures (DSA) that, with immediate effect, it has withdrawn two small A400M work packages from the local company."
"There are a number of South African participants in the A400M program, but the 2 biggest are the Denel Saab Aerostructures joint venture, and Aerosud.
DSA is the design authority for 2 of the A400M’s top shells, which sit in front of and behind the center wing box fuselage section, and for the aluminum/composites wing-fuselage fairings. They also contribute the ribs and spars for the tail fin, and center wing box structural components. The firm expected revenue of R 13 billion from its A400M activities over the next 15 years.
Aerosud is mainly responsible for secondary structures like linings for the nose fuselage, cargo hold, and cockpit, as well as the cockpit rigid bulkhead, nose fuselage galleys, and the wing tips which will contain some defensive systems. That workshare has been estimated at about R 1.5 billion."
"“Chapter 4 of South Africa’s Medium Term Budget Statement, released on Tuesday, under the heading “Revised expenditure estimates, 2009/10,” stated “R192-million for Airbus’s (sic) claim against Denel Saab Aerostructures, subject to verification, for DSA’s failure to meet performance targets as part of the 2004 acquisition of eight A400M aircraft”.
“Airbus can confirm that there are definitely no penalties being invoked against DSA, or against Aerosud for that matter,” states European group local spokesperson Linden Birns. “On the contrary, we’ve made more resources available to both companies, to help them meet their performance targets.”... Further, the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) and DSA have jointly issued a statement affirming that “DSA has met its targets in terms of its contracts” for the A400M.”"
and an interesting collection of various sources that have contradicted each other in the past in this "fact file" http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...rt-&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159
"Contrary to popular belief, fostered somewhat by government and the SAAF, the A400M was not a replacement for the 47-year-old Lockheed Martin C130BZ Hercules aircraft operated by 28 Squadron. It was meant to replace expensive Ilyushin Il-76 “Candid” charter flights as well as the Boeing 707 airborne refuellers/electronic warfare aircraft, the last of which retired in July 2007."
"There is a school of thought that the South African government was more interested in the advantages associated with being risk-sharing partner in the programme than in the aircraft themselves."
“And finally the economic/industrial cost. Not just that Denel Saab Aerostructures may find itself on the skids and that others might be in trouble or at least have to lay off people,”Heitman insists. “What we have done is demonstrate conclusively that we are not reliable business partners for a complex development. When the going gets tough, the South Africans get going – for the door. That does not bode well for future investment. We could and should have negotiated on the deal, not pulled out.
South Africa may yet find the only replacement for the A400M is the A400M. The cost escalation from €20 billion to €31 billion implies a cost increase of some 50%, with Airbus and its parent EADS to absorb about half. As a rule-of-thumb this would have increased the SA cost 25% from €837 million to some €1.046 billion. In February 2009 that was just over R11 billion, quite lose to the R9.6 billion originally budgeted. As it stands the SAAF now have to soldier on without an aerial refueller and long-range transport while DSA faces a crisis and its staff retrenchment. It is the worst of all worlds. In retrospect Cabinet may well be been as pennywise and pound foolish, substituting sound strategy for fleeting popularity.”