Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:58 pm

Reuters UK reporting. EADS thinks one of the participants will not stick to the terms of the deal hammered out earlier this year to rescue the program. The UK and Germany have been public that they want to cut back; the French seem to be sticking to their number, at least so far. Sounds like this program is still "up in the air" and to use that old refrain "nothing has been decided yet".

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLD...=RSS&feedName=tnBasicIndustries-SP

Quote:
Aug 6 (Reuters) - Airbus said on Friday that further cuts in orders for its A400M military transport planes, as one politician from Germany's ruling coalition suggested this week, would mean production would no longer be worthwhile.

The manufacturer cannot afford to build fewer than 170 of the A400M planes, a company spokesman said on Friday after a German politician called for a further cut in Germany's order.

"There would be no economic foundation for the A400M programme with under 170 planes," an Airbus spokesman said.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:23 pm

EADS is telling its customers how many A-400s they must order? Are they saying "if we build it, you will buy it"?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13753
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:11 pm

EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.

I really, really, really doubt DE will cut 20 planes from its order.

If it comes anywhere near that, we'll be back to crisis meetings being held in the bowels of various government buildings all across Europe.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:44 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.

If this number from inception of the program or after it ran into trouble with delays?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:04 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.

If this number from inception of the program or after it ran into trouble with delays?

After it ran into delays. It is interesting that EADS never mentions the 170 minimum number of A-400 sales if it includes the 4 to Malaysa. So is the real minimum 174 airplanes, or 170? The number 170 only applies to the total sales in Europe.

Germany has had some bad luck with EADS products of late, like the Tiger and the A-400 which will not have the low level capability they want. The UK is broke and can afford very little. I expect Germany, and the UK to cancel more than just 10 airplanes combined.

EADS is not concerned about any airplane type meeting the break-even point in (profitable) sales or they would have canceled the A-380, which is still some 200-250 sales from break-even.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:06 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.


This would make sense if EADS is never going to attempt to sell the A400 to anyone else. Don't they plan any follow on sales?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:16 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
EADS has been totally consistent that 170 is the minimum number of A440Ms needed for the program to be viable.


This would make sense if EADS is never going to attempt to sell the A400 to anyone else. Don't they plan any follow on sales?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
So is the real minimum 174 airplanes, or 170?

Clearly, EADS is playing with the numbers. France has what, 50 A-400s on order? IIRC, Germany has the biggest order at 60 airplanes. The UK has some 25. If Germany and the UK dropped all their orders, France would still get their 50 airplanes. Malaysa will still get 4, and Turkey their 8 (?). I forgot how many Spain has on order, but they will get theirs, too. IIRC, someone has only 1 on order. EADS will yell loudly, if Germany and the UK canceled their 85 airplanes, but it will still get built. EADS will threaten to pull the wing work out of the UK, no work out of Germany (Germany owns some of EADS/Airbus).

There is no "real" minimum number of A-400s to be built. It is time to call EADS's bluff.

EADS really would like to sell additional A-400s to anyone who will buy them. They keep pressuring South Africa to renew their canceled order. They keep threatening the EU customers if there is any talk about more than 10 cancels. That is BS. But, as long as the price, and contract talks are still 'up in the air', no one will buy it, so EADS has to try to keep what is ordered any way they can.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:25 pm

As there is no alternative to the A400M, i do not see EADS in any hurry for additional sales...

They will come as soon as delivery positions are free again.

EADS only wanted to tell the existing customers, that below 170 pieces, the contracted price per unit will be difficult to reach.

So, calm down, guys.

There will be some reduced numbers from the existing customers, but Germany for example, has ordered too many of the A400Ms. If they reduce their numbers, they free-up their money for other equipment.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:38 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
There will be some reduced numbers from the existing customers, but Germany for example, has ordered too many of the A400Ms. If they reduce their numbers, they free-up their money for other equipment.

I don't think that is quite how it is working. I seem to recall the reduced number is due to the cost rise of the A400, so they are getting fewer planes for the original price. I don't believe there is any cost savings for Germany.
What the...?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:39 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Are they saying "if we build it, you will buy it"?

More like if they don't buy enough, they won't build it. It seems a little bit odd at this point, since most of the money has already been spent, but if EADS is sick of playing games with EU governments, I can't really blame them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
EADS is not concerned about any airplane type meeting the break-even point in (profitable) sales

We both know better than that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
they would have canceled the A-380, which is still some 200-250 sales from break-even.

That isn't an unreasonable goal for the A380 anyway.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
As there is no alternative to the A400M,

Boeing might want to try and breathe more life into the C-17. Especially if they continue to look at a narrower or lightened version.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
EADS only wanted to tell the existing customers, that below 170 pieces, the contracted price per unit will be difficult to reach

At which point the governments will have a decision to make. And perhaps EADS too, if they governments aren't willing to renegotiate prices.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:46 am

@ BMI727


I really do not see the C17 in whatever new version as a competitive aircraft to the A400M.

They both work fine side-by-side, but none of them is a threat for the other aicraft.


Germany and other canceling some would be great for Airbus to deliver the ordered aircrafts sooner than expected.

In the long run, this aircraft program will be sold more than thousand pieces in different versions including different fuselage length.

Germany really should cancel 10-15 A400s and order 5 C17 instead of.

Reduced numbers of ordered aircraft with a higher utilization per aircraft reduces the overall operating costs a lot.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:54 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
I really do not see the C17 in whatever new version as a competitive aircraft to the A400M.

That's easy to say now, but what happens when the orders for the A400M go down and the price goes up? The larger C-17 starts to look a lot better and people might go take a second look to see if they might be able to get by with C-130Js instead. As it stands (grabbing some quick numbers off Wikipedia) the A400M comes in at about $180,000,000 per plane. The C-130J costs a little over a third of that and the C-17 will cost just $10 million more per plane than the A400M but can carry more too. Not to mention that Boeing might be willing to cut a deal in order to keep the production line alive.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:23 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
Germany really should cancel 10-15 A400s and order 5 C17 instead of.

Good idea, after all the RAF will have at least 8 C-17s, and maybe as many as 12, operating along side of their 20, or so A-400s and 24 C-130Js and J-30s.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:56 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
i do not see EADS in any hurry for additional sales


One wonders why not.... Somethings suggests that EADS wants to get these built,. close up shop and be done with it ... even with the renegotiation they will lose money... There appears to be no commitment for the long haul... At least Boeing is still actively marketing the C-17 and the "lite" version...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13753
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:18 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
One wonders why not.... Somethings suggests that EADS wants to get these built,. close up shop and be done with it ... even with the renegotiation they will lose money... There appears to be no commitment for the long haul... At least Boeing is still actively marketing the C-17 and the "lite" version...

I disagree. I think EADS is trying to make sales and is participating in any bid that they have a chance of winning.

I just think the customer base will not expand till these "contract amendments" are signed to help signal the future viability of the program and to determine what "export levy" future customers will be paying.

I think everyone involved wants the program to go forward (witness all the crisis meetings of last winter/spring), but budgets are weak and it's going to be hard for any of the governments to make any sort of concessions.

A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations (by Revelation Mar 16 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) has a list of the things still needing to be resolved.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
spantax
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:44 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:42 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
Somethings suggests that EADS wants to get these built,. close up shop and be done with it ... even with the renegotiation they will lose money... There appears to be no commitment for the long haul

IMHO there is not the slightest chance of this program being cancelled or whatever. A400 means independence for Europe in the field of big military transport aircraft. It is a concept, an ideal, nothing you can beat with numbers, even in these troubled economic times. Thus, forget about prices, shorcuts, C-17, C-130, EADS quarrels, technical issues, etc. The plane will go on. And (as far as we know at present), it will be an outstanding plane that many many countries will buy in the future (Just my 2 eurocents)
A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:00 pm

Quoting spantax (Reply 15):
A400 means independence for Europe in the field of big military transport aircraft.

You might get complaints from the US side on their dependence on Europe for tanker a/c but........ 
Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
I think EADS is trying to make sales and is participating in any bid that they have a chance of winning.

I just think the customer base will not expand till these "contract amendments" are signed to help signal the future viability of the program and to determine what "export levy" future customers will be paying.

I think everyone involved wants the program to go forward (witness all the crisis meetings of last winter/spring), but budgets are weak and it's going to be hard for any of the governments to make any sort of concessions.

In my opinion an accurate assesment of the current situation. If EADS came out tommorrow and announced that the program would go on and production would start XXX and unit cost was XXX for the initial run, a good signal would be sent to potential non-EU customers.
If adidtional funds have to be sourced from EU governments 1, 2, 5, 10 years into the future there is no doubt it will be given so what really is the hang up within EADS on going full steam ahead?
 
bennett123
Posts: 7425
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:08 pm

iirc the RAF is only taking 22.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:55 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
If adidtional funds have to be sourced from EU governments 1, 2, 5, 10 years into the future there is no doubt it will be given so what really is the hang up within EADS on going full steam ahead?


are you implying that EADS will need additional hand outs to carry the program forward? Or do you mean a loosening of the current economic crisis will allow governments to buy more planes?

If the first is true, I doubt the program will ever be viable on it's own and it would just be postponing the demise. If an improving economic picture would translate into sales, maybe but not enough to sustain the program. From what I see many countries are reassessing the need for current sized military forces and once cut there will be reluctance to rebuild.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:00 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
Reduced numbers of ordered aircraft with a higher utilization per aircraft reduces the overall operating costs a lot.

Something tells me that holds true for a commercial operator, but I just don't see a military organization using a lot of that kind of analysis to make a decision (but I could be wrong). It might justify the higher cost, but in the end a military organization has a mission to fly and they have no profitability motives, unlike a commercial operator. So they either have the resources to fly the mission (e.g., x number of units) or they don't. If they don't they will look at alternative - cheaper - resources. Besides, the higher utilization rate will eventually bump up against expected - and unexpected - maintenance, or hangar, time.

IMO, I would think a higher utilization rate would actually be anathema to military equipment because it will ultimately shorten the service life of the equipment. Maybe that is not a bad thing because then EADS can look forward to replacement orders just as the initial orders are fulfilled???
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:53 am

And you have to be careful that you don't over utilize a smaller fleet; that's how Canada got into a mess when the older C-130's started timing out, and the government was scrounging for ways to achieve the transport demand with a fleet that was rapidly becoming un-airworthy.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13753
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:49 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
If the first is true, I doubt the program will ever be viable on it's own and it would just be postponing the demise.

Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings. We also see Brazil entering the market too. I think the EU was hoping that the program would not have the budget explosion we've seen, and the old story of "half the C-17 at half the price" would have made sense to EU as well as export customers. I don't want to have the price argument all over again, but as mentioned above the A400M is a lot less interesting to the export market (and even the EU market) as costs increase and functionality is delayed or deleted.

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
If an improving economic picture would translate into sales, maybe but not enough to sustain the program.

Well, we've already seen EADS take write-offs for A400M, and I think more are to come. Clearly EADS wants to get the first batch of A400Ms built and out the door making as little loss as possible, and take any write offs necessary, and then be able to price the A400M at cost of production plus some profit, and not have to price them based on carrying the R+D losses forward.

It's more or less what MDD did with the C-17. Luckily for MDD they did all this in a healthier budgetary era and they always knew there would be more orders coming from the USAF and export customers once the start up issues were worked out.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:03 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
are you implying that EADS will need additional hand outs to carry the program forward? Or do you mean a loosening of the current economic crisis will allow governments to buy more planes?

See Revelations comments below, which I agree.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings. We also see Brazil entering the market too. I think the EU was hoping that the program would not have the budget explosion we've seen, and the old story of "half the C-17 at half the price" would have made sense to EU as well as export customers. I don't want to have the price argument all over again, but as mentioned above the A400M is a lot less interesting to the export market (and even the EU market) as costs increase and functionality is delayed or deleted.

My post was not meant as a flame on the EU, not sure how you mean the terms "additional hand outs", but the EU governments claims to want their own native abilities for everything, so this a/c will be built and put into production. How many and how much they cost in my opinion do not have to be made in stone at this point.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 17):
iirc the RAF is only taking 22.

That was before the new government's Treasury forced in a 25% reduction to the RAF and the rest of the MOD. Who knows where the RAF order stands now?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
I just think the customer base will not expand till these "contract amendments" are signed to help signal the future viability of the program and to determine what "export levy" future customers will be paying.

A future country can easily tell EADS "we want to buy the A-400, but we will not pay the EU export fees or loan repayment portions of our order". Then what do they do? Loose the sale, or work something out with Germany and France?

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
If adidtional funds have to be sourced from EU governments 1, 2, 5, 10 years into the future there is no doubt it will be given so what really is the hang up within EADS on going full steam ahead?


are you implying that EADS will need additional hand outs to carry the program forward? Or do you mean a loosening of the current economic crisis will allow governments to buy more planes?

I think he means both.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:48 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings.

The United States does not have a military transport to offer. The C-17 and the C-130J are offered by privately held companies not any government entity.

The C-130J was developed by Lockheed using company funds, with the launch customer being the UK MOD.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:36 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 24):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Well, there is no denying one motivation of the A400M program was for EU to have its own entry in the military transport market and to not surrender it to the US and ex-Soviet block offerings.

The United States does not have a military transport to offer. The C-17 and the C-130J are offered by privately held companies not any government entity.

The C-130J was developed by Lockheed using company funds, with the launch customer being the UK MOD.

Correct. Both the C-17 and C-130J have been selling well, while the A-400 orders are at best stagnent.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:48 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):

Correct. Both the C-17 and C-130J have been selling well, while the A-400 orders are at best stagnent.

I would argue that this is primarily due to the more immediate availability of the C-17 and the C-130J than anything else. As many nations are in the process of turning over their transport fleets, quickly replacing ageing aircraft is a major concern, and as such, quick deliveries are appreciated in this manner. This was certainly the case for Canada where replacing the C-130E and H fleet was of immediate concern due to the implosion of the C-130 fleet due to excessive use.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:19 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
quickly replacing ageing aircraft is a major concern, and as such, quick deliveries are appreciated in this manner. This was certainly the case for Canada where replacing the C-130E and H fleet was of immediate concern due to the implosion of the C-130 fleet due to excessive use.

Even if the A400M was avalible at the time, no one in Canada is going to even mention the A400M as a possiblity. Airbus burned that bridge in epic fashion.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:28 pm

Possibly China could order 5, fly 4 and take apart 1 to reverse engineer it. Then they would make the A200, same plane but half the cost.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:45 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):

Correct. Both the C-17 and C-130J have been selling well, while the A-400 orders are at best stagnent.

I would argue that this is primarily due to the more immediate availability of the C-17 and the C-130J than anything else. As many nations are in the process of turning over their transport fleets, quickly replacing ageing aircraft is a major concern, and as such, quick deliveries are appreciated in this manner.

Which, due to the 4 year delay in the A-400 program is a major part of why its sales are stagnent. Another problem seems to be its capabilities or lack of capability to replace speical C-130s or large heavy loads needing a C-17. To date, there is no A-400 with an MC, EC, WC, AC, or RC capability.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13753
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:17 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
To date, there is no A-400 with an MC, EC, WC, AC, or RC capability.

I hope the A400M has a WC capability!
   Wow!    
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:01 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Another problem seems to be its capabilities or lack of capability to replace speical C-130s or large heavy loads needing a C-17. To date, there is no A-400 with an MC, EC, WC, AC, or RC capability.

Well, not YET. Those models of the C-130 came a decade after the introduction of the C-130.
 
A5XX
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:36 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:18 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
I would argue that this is primarily due to the more immediate availability of the C-17 and the C-130J than anything else

I think Canada should add 4 - 5 A400M in it's inventory IMHO. It would be the perfect plane to replace many of the ageing C130's, and would be a nice complement to the C17's.
we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:10 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Those models of the C-130 came a decade after the introduction of the C-130.

Agree, but do we have to wait a similar period for the A400 to get them? What made the initial a/c so impressive and possible expensive was the number of enhancements built in which as you mention other a/c took decades to achieve, in particular the low level flight capabilities.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:01 pm

Quoting A5XX (Reply 32):
I think Canada should add 4 - 5 A400M in it's inventory IMHO. It would be the perfect plane to replace many of the ageing C130's, and would be a nice complement to the C17's.

Really? You know anyone advocating the A400 in canada would be lucky to serve out thier term, either as a politican or member of the military. There is just a *little* anger about the political BS the EU and airbus pulled with the engine contract.

Nevermind more C130 or C17 are going to be far cheaper options for them.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:30 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Another problem seems to be its capabilities or lack of capability to replace speical C-130s or large heavy loads needing a C-17. To date, there is no A-400 with an MC, EC, WC, AC, or RC capability.

Well, not YET. Those models of the C-130 came a decade after the introduction of the C-130.

That is nearly true. The RC-130B first flew in 1957 or 1958, just 3 years after the the first C-130A was delivered to the USAF. The USAF had talked about additional missions for the C-130 in the mid 1950s. The RC-130 was the first varient, and the WC-130B followed about 1961 or 1962.

As far as I know, no one is talking abouth additional missions for the A-400 beyond the tanker mission, at least for now.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 32):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
I would argue that this is primarily due to the more immediate availability of the C-17 and the C-130J than anything else

I think Canada should add 4 - 5 A400M in it's inventory IMHO. It would be the perfect plane to replace many of the ageing C130's, and would be a nice complement to the C17's.

Most other Canadians don't agree with you. The CC-130J is being bought to complement the CC-177, as well as replace the aging CC-130E/H.

All 4 CC-177s have been delivered, and the CFAC has already taken delivery if their first CC-130J-30, of the 17 "Js" and "J-30s" on order. Apparently the 2 CC-130H-30s and 5 KC-130Hs are staying in service for a while longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...of_the_Canadian_Forces_Air_Command
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:41 am

Germany to take 53 according to this article; the UK 22. The total now stands at 170.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0A400M%20Agreement&channel=defense

Quote:
Germany will take only 53 of the 60 Airbus Military A400Ms originally on order, German government sources indicated on Monday.

A400M customers continue to chip away at the commitment of 180 units that was negotiated as part of a general settlement reached in March. With the U.K. planning to cut its commitment by three aircraft, the total program now totals 170 aircraft.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:33 pm

I believe that accounts for the 10 cancelled A-400s EADS said they would accept. But, that is only 2 of the 8 EU customers. Any info on if the remaining 5 countries have confirmed their original orders? I know France has already done that for their 50 A-400s on order.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:41 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 34):
Really? You know anyone advocating the A400 in canada would be lucky to serve out thier term, either as a politican or member of the military. There is just a *little* anger about the political BS the EU and airbus pulled with the engine contract.

Agreed, and the engine issue is probably the single main issue behind the huge delays in getting this thing into service, as well as a large part of the cost overruns.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Most other Canadians don't agree with you. The CC-130J is being bought to complement the CC-177, as well as replace the aging CC-130E/H.

All 4 CC-177s have been delivered, and the CFAC has already taken delivery if their first CC-130J-30, of the 17 "Js" and "J-30s" on order. Apparently the 2 CC-130H-30s and 5 KC-130Hs are staying in service for a while longer.

For the CF, adding another small type fleet does not make sense from either a training or mx p.o.v. If more lift is needed, another 1-2 C-17s and some C-130Js will do the job nicely.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:59 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 38):
For the CF, adding another small type fleet does not make sense from either a training or mx p.o.v. If more lift is needed, another 1-2 C-17s and some C-130Js will do the job nicely.

Don't forget, the CF is to decide on about 6 CC-115 replacement aircraft for the 19 Wing soon. The contenders are the C-27J and C-295. The replacements are planned at 1:1, meaning it should be 6 aircraft. To me the C-27J makes sense because it has the same engines and propeller/gear box and some avionics that is common to the CC-130J.

But, which replacement Canada will choose is unknown right now. The engines of the C-27J are built by RR-North America, which produces parts of the engine in Canada. The C-295 engine is also partly produced in Canada, but by PW-Canada.

So, with the new CC-177s, CC-130Js, and either the C-27J or C-295, Canada does not need the A-400M.

[Edited 2010-10-26 06:01:07]
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:21 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
Don't forget, the CF is to decide on about 6 CC-115 replacement aircraft for the 19 Wing soon. The contenders are the C-27J and C-295. The replacements are planned at 1:1, meaning it should be 6 aircraft. To me the C-27J makes sense because it has the same engines and propeller/gear box and some avionics that is common to the CC-130J.

I believe the req is for 17 a/c, as this will enable retirement of older E Hercs from SAR role, as well as a handful of Twotters. I think the C-27J should have this one in the bag, as it shares a common engine with the Super Herc and a nearly identical cockpit.

The alleged NG Buffalo is I believe a non-starter, although the Buff does have the ability to fly low and slow, which is excellent for SAR work. And I'm not sure there's any other market for it as the C-27J and CN-295 seem to be selling, if not spectacularly, then steadily.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:41 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Boeing might want to try and breathe more life into the C-17. Especially if they continue to look at a narrower or lightened version.
Quoting 328JET (Reply 10):
I really do not see the C17 in whatever new version as a competitive aircraft to the A400M.

They both work fine side-by-side, but none of them is a threat for the other aircraft.

Excuse my ignorance, I'm not in the Aviation Field, but with the USAF hinting at a "fat" C-130 or a possible replacement, does the A400 stand a chance of ending up in the US inventory? Would we be able to utilize it properly if so?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
Even if the A400M was available at the time, no one in Canada is going to even mention the A400M as a possibility. Airbus burned that bridge in epic fashion.

Could one of you please explain the "Bridge Burning"?

We don't have much bandwidth over here and we have others who need to get online, that's why I'm asking for some of you to do some searching.

Thanks very much,

F
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:58 pm

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 41):
Could one of you please explain the "Bridge Burning"?

P&W canada won the engine contract for the A400M. This was not what the EU nations wanted so they forced Airbus to select again. This resulted in the selection of a new consortium created just for this one engine.

http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Articl...m?issuetocid=374&ArchiveIssueID=40
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:04 pm

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 41):
does the A400 stand a chance of ending up in the US inventory?

I can't predict the future, but I don't think the A400 is going to fly in USAF colors. Here's a brief summary of the options being considered:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...saf-asks-industry-to-answer-c.html

I would not be surprised to see a new design by LM, or a group of aerospace companies, including Boeing getting involved. The U.S. can ill afford to cede this market to the likes of EADS, Embraer, Alenia, and Antonov.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:40 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 42):
P&W canada won the engine contract for the A400M. This was not what the EU nations wanted so they forced Airbus to select again. This resulted in the selection of a new consortium created just for this one engine.

You know, even for a guy like me outside the Aviation Industry, having a consortium to build one engine over an established and experienced company sounds completely idiotic!

Quoting lumberton (Reply 43):
I would not be surprised to see a new design by LM, or a group of aerospace companies, including Boeing getting involved. The U.S. can ill afford to cede this market to the likes of EADS, Embraer, Alenia, and Antonov.

Definitely like to see that happen! Political infighting aside (you know that will happen!) Boeing, LM, NGC etc. putting their heads together could probably make one hell of an airlifter. And let PW Canada build the engine!!!

Thanks very much for the info guys!
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
 
bennett123
Posts: 7425
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:59 pm

"burning your bridges" basicly means destroying your ability to change your mind.

So by rejecting the Canadian engine, they lost the opportunity to get an order from Canada.

If they had valid reasons, then they might have been able to get back, but the reasons seemed purely political.
 
keesje
Posts: 8592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:09 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 42):
P&W canada won the engine contract for the A400M.
Quoting fridgmus (Reply 44):
You know, even for a guy like me outside the Aviation Industry, having a consortium to build one engine over an established and experienced company sounds completely idiotic

The consortium partners in Europrop build about 20 types of turboprops for decades. E.g. powering the C130J, Osprey and many helicopters. Some seem to think PW Canada had a proven engine. Question which 10.000 + shp engine / gearbox ? Reality is it was just powerpoint. Such engine did not exist in the west. Not even close.

Quoting lumberton (Reply 43):
I would not be surprised to see a new design by LM, or a group of aerospace companies, including Boeing getting involved. The U.S. can ill afford to cede this market to the likes of EADS, Embraer, Alenia, and Antonov.

I wonder what LM / Boeing are waiting for. There clearly is a requirement for a bigger C130 replacement and the A400M is twice as big. The shrink C-17 and blownup C130 seem inferior solutions. If LM and or Boeing would come up with a bigger fuselage, rough terrain 20-30t modern twin platform they could be very successful IMO, also in Europe.

I could even see LM strike a deal with EADS both supporting the A400M and smaller new cargo lifter. Unless everybody buys the KC-390..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:53 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 46):
I wonder what LM / Boeing are waiting for.

Probably the requirements from the customer, not a.net. Steve Trimble's blog noted:

Quote:
What the CRFI shows is that the time for making some very basic decisions is getting even closer. If the USAF wants to launch a new program by 2014, service officials need to define the requirement and ask a future Secretary of Defense for a lot of money at the dawn of a new era of fiscal austerity.


[Edited 2010-10-26 13:53:40]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:14 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 46):
There clearly is a requirement for a bigger C130 replacement and the A400M is twice as big

Perhaps there just isn't that much of a requirement for a plane between the C-130 and the C-17 past the 170 A400's currently on order. Why would LM wade spend the billions if there just isn't a market?
What the...?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170

Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:20 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 46):
The shrink C-17 and blownup C130 seem inferior solutions.

Without knowing the capabilities of the small C-17 or Fat C-130, how can you say that?

Quoting keesje (Reply 46):
There clearly is a requirement for a bigger C130 replacement and the A400M is twice as big.

Perhaps, but that capability in that range seems to already have a crowded field with the A-400, CX-2 and C/KC-390. Except for the few C/KC-390 orders lately, this class of airlifters isn't burning up the sales sheets.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jking629 and 8 guests