Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:45 pm

This will certainly mean another handful of C-17s ordered by the UK...and they will likely consider cancelling the A400M altogether and getting C130Js to complement their C-17s. They don't need to get out of the program, they can do like with the Typhoon: take their aircraft but sell them off to another country. They won't make any money out of it but they will minimise financial losses.

Spain can and will wait, because from an operational point of view their C-130s are still in good shape and can keep flying around for some time, and from a political-industrial point of view the program is a major strategic project.

Now as for France and Germany...their C-160s are falling apart and they cannot afford to wait that long for the A400M... there's hardly any more spare Antonovs to rent... getting C130Js for interim lift would be politically inacceptable... I see a problem here.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:23 pm



Quoting R2rho (Reply 50):
getting C130Js for interim lift would be politically inacceptable... I see a problem here.

Probably doesn't fit the picture but they have C-130s already..
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/c130h.jpg>

It's not clear to me what EADS is proposing, it looks like a phased integration of functionality. If I was the airforces I would do that..

News is contradicting:

"We are downgrading the plane," Gallois said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3898951&c=AIR&s=TOP

He also refused to specify the changes to "technical characteristics" that EADS is proposing to A400M customers, but ruled out any downgrading of the aircraft.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...bridging-solution-after-a400m.html
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:39 pm

A330 as a temporary replacement for the late A400M, how does this make any sense?
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:48 pm



Quoting 474218 (Reply 52):
A330 as a temporary replacement for the late A400M, how does this make any sense?

It doesn't. Period.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:58 pm

From the Defense News article linked by keesje:

Quote:
"We are downgrading the plane," Gallois said.

The negotiations with customer nations will allow EADS to deliver phased versions of the A400M, similar to the Eurofighter and Rafale combat jets, which entered service with baseline capabilities and were upgraded over time.

Tht certainly sounds like "downgrading" to me. So it will be delivered years late and be less capable than promised? Why A330s for "bridging"? Doesn't this make the C-130J-30 more attractive to the RAF?

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:35 am

At this point, the horse has already bolted so I don't see much of a chance of a wholesale cancellation of the A400M program. The RAF may decide to exit and go with the C-17, but I could see them hedging their bets and buying C-17s while still staying committed to at least some of their A400M buys. Germany, France and Spain I expect to stand by the purchase in full.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:02 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 53):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 52):
A330 as a temporary replacement for the late A400M, how does this make any sense?

It doesn't. Period.

It is the best EADS can do in-house.

France, Germany and Spain will hang with the program until the airplanes are delivered.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:31 pm

After the 787 and A400M experience, I'm no longer giving any credibility to roll out ceremonies as significant milestones in a program!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 51):
Quoting R2rho (Reply 50):
getting C130Js for interim lift would be politically inacceptable... I see a problem here.

Probably doesn't fit the picture but they have C-130s already..
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/c130h.jpg>

Yes, acquired some time ago when there was no European alternative available. France also has KC-135s. It's acquiring C-130J's today that would be politically unacceptable, as it would send the message that the A400M has been a failure.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 52):
A330 as a temporary replacement for the late A400M, how does this make any sense?

Well if you do regular daily cargo duties with A330Fs and restrict the C-160s to operations where tactical capabilities are truly required, it would take some hours of the aircraft and extend their service lives.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5414
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:12 pm



Quoting R2rho (Reply 57):
Well if you do regular daily cargo duties with A330Fs and restrict the C-160s to operations where tactical capabilities are truly required, it would take some hours of the aircraft and extend their service lives.

Problem is that Airbus has no A330Fs available now, and have pushed back plans for development. All compensation (which is desperately needed according to some posters here) would be in PAX A330s.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:11 pm



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 58):
Problem is that Airbus has no A330Fs available now, and have pushed back plans for development. All compensation (which is desperately needed according to some posters here) would be in PAX A330s.

In addition the minor detail that there are no A330 available, where do the air forces get the pilots, mechanics and spare parts for the A330's. They could train crews then fight to retain them when their enlistments are up! Maybe the European military has something like the US's National Guard or Reserves where trained crews could be called up it time of need? There are not a lot of outs, C-17 to replace a C-160 doesn't make a lot of sense, maybe two C-27J's to replace each C-130 or C-160 possibility. IMO the only logical thing to do is buy or lease C-130J's, until the A400 comes on line.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:19 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 59):
There are not a lot of outs, C-17 to replace a C-160 doesn't make a lot of sense, maybe two C-27J's to replace each C-130 or C-160 possibility. IMO the only logical thing to do is buy or lease C-130J's, until the A400 comes on line.

IMVHO, the only "outs" that I see as politically acceptable to Germany, France, and Spain are a combination of A330s and C295s. If that won't fit the mission, then they will find a way to change the mission to make it fit. As for the lease option, if I were Boeing or LockMart, I'd offer very attractive pricing, but only for purchase. Why bail out Airbus?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 46):
In other words, there is no power on earth that will cause Germany, France, and Spain to walk away from the A400.

What I still find stunning is Gallois' admission that the aircraft would be downgraded.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 54):
From the Defense News article linked by keesje:

Quote:
"We are downgrading the plane," Gallois said.


[Edited 2009-01-14 15:24:42]
 
texl1649
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:48 am

It's not as though France intends to actually deploy/use military tactical airlift. Passenger A-330 = A-400M for all practical purposes.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5414
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:09 am



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 61):
It's not as though France intends to actually deploy/use military tactical airlift.

France has a lot of commitments in Africa right now, on both the east and west coasts including use of helos, Mirages, and armored vehicles.

Would love to see them get an AMX-10 on an A330.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:04 am



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 62):
France has a lot of commitments in Africa right now, on both the east and west coasts including use of helos, Mirages, and armored vehicles.

Would love to see them get an AMX-10 on an A330.

Or an A330 land on an dirt/gravel/grass strip
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:48 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 56):
It is the best EADS can do in-house.

I think another post in the thread by 474218 addresses all the reasons I think a 330 is a non-starter. On top of the fact there are no 330Fs available. I'm just not sure what EADS intends to do other than carry high ranking military officials around on their new strategic airlift 330s.

I'm also not sure how EADS would get any of them to the various customers of the 400M. I mean it's not like they have a bunch of 330s sitting around for sale these days.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:58 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 60):
What I still find stunning is Gallois' admission that the aircraft would be downgraded.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 54):
From the Defense News article linked by keesje:

Quote:
"We are downgrading the plane," Gallois said.

What I understand is that they want some functionalities to be implemented later e.g. air refuelling capability to speed up delivery..

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:46 pm

From the CivAv Airbus 2009 Guidance thread, Tom Enders has quite a lot to say about A400M:

- Enders called the current setup "a recipe for disaster"
- Enders said with the current setup it would be "irresponsible to continue."
- Delays to the A400M program have already cost euro1.7 billion ($1.84 billion)
- EADS say they underestimated the technical complexity of the program and are unable to meet their commitments to customers
- Enders says the commercial contracts were not suited for military orders
- Enders says Airbus was "stupid" to accept the contract in the first place
- Enders says if that contract was proposed to Boeing "they would run away crying."

Oi vey!

 gasp   hyper   knockout   mad   no   vomit   weeping 

Ref: http://www.cnbc.com/id/28671077
Ref: https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4283188/
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:43 pm

This may be nothing at all...contractors are getting the axe at Filton.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homep...article-621229-detail/article.html

Quote:
More than 30 contractors working on the Airbus A400M military transporter plane have been made redundant.

The planemaker has confirmed 34 staff - all mechanical fitters - working on test models of the plane at Filton were given notice on Monday.

 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:43 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
Oi vey!

Translation for some of our foreign readers: "Good Grief!"

Even though some of that is posturing that is an INCREDIBLY brutal state of affairs Enders is speaking of. The two questions I would have for him in return would be:

1) Why did you (EADS) take the contracts in the first place ?
2) How are you only now realizing you can't deliver what you promised?
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:42 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 68):
that is an INCREDIBLY brutal state of affairs Enders is speaking of

His and Louis Gallois' honesty are much appreciated in an industry that has us accustomed to secrecy and vague statements!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:02 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 68):
1) Why did you (EADS) take the contracts in the first place ?

According to Enders, it's because EADS was "stupid".

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 68):
2) How are you only now realizing you can't deliver what you promised?

Uhm, perhaps it's also due to stupidity?  Smile
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:40 pm

This podcast assesses the options of the customers. Speculation that the Luftwaffe is considering C-17s (!!!) and the A400M will be delivered with significant performance shortfalls, specifically 2-3 tons in lift capacity.
http://iagblog.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-16T09_21_21-08_00
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:44 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 71):
This podcast assesses the options of the customers.

*IF* the payload is reduced on the airframe, as has been hinted at, and it's not enough to carry what the various airforces require then some may have no choice in the matter. I can see the UK and Germany both reducing the size of their orders substantially and picking up other lift. What this does for the pricing for the remaining members remains to be seen, but I sense a domino effect in the making.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7481
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:55 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 72):
I can see the UK and Germany both reducing the size of their orders substantially and picking up other lift.

The UK is certainly considering that option.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...y-plans-following-fresh-a400m.html

Quote:
"The UK is maintaining its tough stance in the wake of EADS's announcement of fresh schedule delays to the Airbus Military A400M transport project, confirming that it is assessing its short-term options and insisting that it will resist any call to increase spending on the troubled project.

'We are naturally concerned by the delays to the A400M programme, and continue to monitor the situation closely,' the Ministry of Defence says. 'We are considering various contingency plans to mitigate any potential capability gap,' it adds.

[.....]

The MoD says its current options include 'reallocating assets dependent on operational requirements, extending the out-of-service date of the [Lockheed Martin] C-130K, and leasing or procuring additional assets - for example C-17s or C-130s'."
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:45 am

I think all sites are throwing extreme scenarios, schedules and alternatives to lay to ground for the upcoming negotiations..

looking at the IAGblog webpage : I was suprised read the text:



 redflag 

I think many Boeing supporters on this site can be qaulified moderate and civilized compared to this IAG blog rant. Man, what an anger and frustration.

Anybody know more about IAG's position / stauts? Do they handle all news this unprofesional way?

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

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:36 am

Keesje, IAG blog regularly excoriates Boeing. In fact, next to Flight Global, they have been the most staunch supporter of the J39 over the F35. To maintain that the author has a vendetta against the A400 because its all about "European jobs" would be off the mark.

IAG is a blog site, just like millions of others around the web. It is OPINION driven, just like all of us here on a.net. Just like the bloggers at Flight Global, AW&ST, et al. If you listen to the pod cast, the English correspondent is rather muted in his criticism, while the German analyst seems to be more scathing.

I can, and have, argued that the A400 program was about jobs. And I have also opined that there is absolutely nothing wrong this as countries must maintain their own defense infrastructure and technology bases. It all comes down to what one is willing to pay and what their tolerance is for pain.

[Edited 2009-01-18 03:37:50]

[Edited 2009-01-18 03:38:44]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:10 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 75):

Have to agree. The issue is internal infrastructure and technology. Nothing wrong with that as long as everyone is on the same page. For the A400 it seems they are not in the same book much less on the same page. That said, France, Germany and Spain will see the project through to the end despite the cost increases and delays.

As far as IAG, they seem to be balanced in their reporting and attempt to let both sides have their say. Their report on the facts in this case was correct - delay and want to renegotiate. The discussion on the options was as reported for the UK. The throw-out of the C-17 for Germany was just that and came across as such. Unless there is someone lurking who is a member of the German Air Staff, we can only speculate what they are thinking. Like all blogs/editorials, listen to it and dismiss it if it doesn't fit your agenda. However, don't discourage the difference in opinion.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:12 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 72):
*IF* the payload is reduced on the airframe, as has been hinted at, and it's not enough to carry what the various airforces require then some may have no choice in the matter.

Well a number of people said the USAF must "bite the bullet" and buy the better plane when it came to the KC-X program, even if that plane was not Boeing.

So perhaps the EU Ministries of Defense must do the same and buy the C-17 and C-130J if they are the better planes, even though those planes are not Airbus.

I know some have argued how the C-17 is "too much" plane and the C-130J is "too little" compared to the A400M, even if the A400M enters service below her specification, but the same arguments were thrown at the KC-30A.

Again, I don't see the A400M program being canceled outright. But a smaller buy from the largest customers (Germany, UK, France and Spain) will raise the unit price and could cause smaller buys or cancellations from Turkey, South Africa, Belgium, Malaysia and Luxembourg because the price has become far too high for them to absorb.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:06 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):

Well a number of people said the USAF must "bite the bullet" and buy the better plane when it came to the KC-X program, even if that plane was not Boeing.

Just as I didn't with the KC-X stuff, I'm *not* getting into the flag waving aspects of this. My issue with the KC-X was that Boeing felt (and was confirmed in their thoughts) that the competition wasn't conducted fairly. I have no interest who wins the KC-X if it's a fair open bid with any/all vendors being allowed to offer appropriate product. At the end of the day it's not about where the KC-X or the A400M lift (whether delivered by the A400 or other frames) come from. It's about where they are going.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
But a smaller buy from the largest customers (Germany, UK, France and Spain) will raise the unit price and could cause smaller buys or cancellations from Turkey, South Africa, Belgium, Malaysia and Luxembourg because the price has become far too high for them to absorb.

Right, so now those other nations have to bail out or reduce their orders, which drives the costs up again. My thoughts are we will see the current contract voided, a new contract drawn up and severely reduced commitments from the UK and Germany (if any at all from the UK). I expect France and Spain will soldier one. I expect the smaller buyers will go 50/50.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:55 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
I know some have argued how the C-17 is "too much" plane and the C-130J is "too little" compared to the A400M, even if the A400M enters service below her specification, but the same arguments were thrown at the KC-30A.

The C130J, A400M and C-17 are all militairy transports, and there is basicly ends.

They are not in the same band width. Look at the payloads, ages, prices. Just not comparable.

The KC-X wasn't between a KC737, KC767 and KC747 either..

Looking at the specs of the aircraft I cannot see how C130J or A400M could have fille them in.

 
texl1649
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:18 pm

The Soyuz is also a (proverbially) ancient, small way to get people into orbit. But it's the only one that has been on time, and gotten it's passengers back safely, every time this century.

The A-400 (and, oh by the way, the AN-70), are great concepts. The C-130/C-17 are great military airlifters.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:23 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 79):
They are not in the same band width. Look at the payloads, ages, prices. Just not comparable.

Keesje:

While I understand what you're trying to say, the chart you linked did nothing for your cause. Also I believe that chart you show lists the planned rather than actual payload of the A400M with is seeriously indoubt right now. Also for some forces there is going to be a sweet spot fo payloads.

For example, depending on where the new figures for the 400M shake out it may end up being excess capacity they don't need. If you want to carry n of something, but can only take 1.8 of them 400M, you're better off with a vehicle that can carry 1 of the item or 3 of them item.

This isn't the cut and dry arguement it used to be for the 400M now. We don't know how much more expensive it's going to end up and we don't know how reduced it's functionality/range is going to be.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:39 pm

Keesje:

I am not sure about your other numbers but the C-130numbers are wrong. Speed is about 670 Kph. At about 70 million a copy you could buy three C-130s for the (hoped for) price of two A400s. Better yet keep the change and use the savings to buy a few C-17s to complement the C-130s.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5414
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:56 pm

The chart is misleading as well as the A400M should also be listed as estimated data. So we're looking at more like 34-35,000kg payload for A400M. C-130J max payload is understated by 1000kg on that chart, as is its speed. The engine data there is completely irrelevant. C390's design has been recently revised and since the source of that graphic isn;t given, we cannot be sure of when it was compiled nor if the Embraer info is remotely close to those estimates.

It would be more useful to just post correct information on those in-service airlifters (a point that cannot be overstressed).

Perhaps EADS would be better off ressurecting the Belfast!
 
texl1649
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:48 pm

Throw in a C-130XL with a 28K Kg load, and Pratt engines, airborne by the time the A-400 enters service or before, and you might have a few problems in the future sales department.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:59 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 84):
Throw in a C-130XL with a 28K Kg load, and Pratt engines, airborne by the time the A-400 enters service or before, and you might have a few problems in the future sales department.

Perhaps with export sales but not sales in Europe. Say what you want about the A400, Typhoon and a host of other defense/industrial projects, at least the Europeans have the good sense to support their own domestic industries when there is a viable domestic product.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:36 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 85):
Say what you want about the A400, Typhoon and a host of other defense/industrial projects, at least the Europeans have the good sense to support their own domestic industries when there is a viable domestic product.

And yet those Europeans accuse the Americans of being morons - or worse, xenophobes - when they want to do it with the KC-X program...  scratchchin  But that's another argument for another time.

Some A400M customers may dabble with a cheaper/less capable platform (C-130J) or an expensive/more capable platform (C-17) to replace in whole or in part to make up for delivery and initial performance shortfalls of the A400M, but those who think the program is going to be outright canceled are either just fooling themselves or letting emotions get in the way of logic.

Even if it doesn't hit the numbers up front, the A400M is still going to be a solid plane for the four core operators (UK, France, Spain, Germany). If they need to pay more, so be it. I cannot think of a military program anywhere or anytime that ever ran to budget, much less under it.  Wink
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:35 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):

Again, I don't see the A400M program being canceled outright. But a smaller buy from the largest customers (Germany, UK, France and Spain) will raise the unit price and could cause smaller buys or cancellations from Turkey, South Africa, Belgium, Malaysia and Luxembourg because the price has become far too high for them to absorb.

Doing some rough math, given the quotes above, EADS cost overruns due to the delays are about $10M/airframe. That's a large chunk of change.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 78):
Right, so now those other nations have to bail out or reduce their orders, which drives the costs up again. My thoughts are we will see the current contract voided, a new contract drawn up and severely reduced commitments from the UK and Germany (if any at all from the UK). I expect France and Spain will soldier one. I expect the smaller buyers will go 50/50.

It'll be interesting to see what the new cost per airframe really ends up being. We still don't know when A400M will be flying, and what capacity it will have, and if EADS was able to keep the cost of producing the airframes within the cost range they were thinking when they wrote the original contract.

Somehow, from Enders's comments, I think it's costing Airbus a lot more per frame to produce the craft than they anticipated.

Maybe we'll hear less about how costly a C-17 is in the future, once we know what it really costs to buy an A400M!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:16 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 87):
Maybe we'll hear less about how costly a C-17 is in the future, once we know what it really costs to buy an A400M!

Well even if they were the same price (which won't happen), the A400M will still be a better fit for some missions then the C-17. You don't always need the most-capable platform for every mission.  Wink
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:16 am

I think politically the UK needs to keep its buy on the A400M. But like many before, I can see the UK purchase some other lift quick and defer deliveries here by a number of years. That will also allow for improvement from the first batch.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:52 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
And yet those Europeans accuse the Americans of being morons - or worse, xenophobes - when they want to do it with the KC-X program... But that's another argument for another time.

Still the KC-30 is way to big for KC-X ( 20% better the KC767 !?! )

Isn't the C-17 is twice as heavy, expensive and carries twice the load of a A400?.

Isn't the C-17 build to carry around main battle tanks, which is not a German/UK/French requirement?

-> You are trying to politise the discussion to hide a clear mismatch in capabilities.

When you simply ignore the numbers, the C-17 fits in pretty good !

 bigthumbsup 
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5414
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:39 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 90):
Isn't the C-17 is twice as heavy, expensive and carries twice the load of a A400?.

Isn't the C-17 build to carry around main battle tanks, which is not a German/UK/French requirement?

Well, it's looking like it can carry much more than twice the payload now... We shall see how much more expensive it is soon.

The Germans need something that can carry its current AFV's. Just because it can carry an MBT doesn't mean they couldn't use it to carry, say, 3 Marders instead.

Same goes to the Frenchies. Otherwise they would have to call the Brits if they needed to move a couple of Leclercs somewhere quick.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:17 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 90):
When you simply ignore the numbers, the C-17 fits in pretty good !

It looks like it might fit in well for some nations trying to cope with A400M delays.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:20 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 90):
Isn't the C-17 is twice as heavy, expensive and carries twice the load of a A400?.

After the dust settles and a new contract is negotiated, I think the C-17 will definitely look like "best value". EADS badly wants out of this fixed price contract fiasco and something more resembling cost-plus. EADS is already on record as threatening to halt production until this thing is renegotiated. Stay tuned.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:17 am

I'm curious about how this and other military contracts are granted. This thread is about the A400 but I will be shocked if someone can point out a military procurement since the P-51 that wasn't late and grossly over budget.

Was this contract bid on? Who designed the plane and based on what?
 
columba
Posts: 5273
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:35 pm



Quote:
Germany is already investigating a further life-extension to some of its C160 Transalls to plug the gap until the A400M is operational

Flightglobal

How would such a life-extension program look like ? Would it also include new engines, props and avionics ?

I still hope for some C130Js for the Luftwaffe.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:06 pm



Quoting Columba (Reply 95):
How would such a life-extension program look like ? Would it also include new engines, props and avionics ?

I still hope for some C130Js for the Luftwaffe.

The issue will be who pays for the SLE. I am sure the Germans will push for EADS to share the work/cost. However this will only increase the "cost" of the A400 program at a time when EADS is already screaming about program costs. Of course if any A330's are supplied this will also add to the program costs, but it will at least all be kept in the family.

IMHO any buys will be C-17's only. Somehow they will make do with the Transalls for the traditional tactical lift.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:07 pm

The problem is that the world does have a peerless heavylift transport in the shape of the C-17, and that transport does have formidable tactical capabilities (and would be even more impressive in its C-17B form). Make no mistake, McD and Boeing have done a fantastic job with the C-17, which I view as one of the outstanding aircraft of the post-War era.

But despite those capabilities, cost considerations mean that it isn't a direct C-130 replacement (though in many cases procuring some C-17s to replace some C-130 capacity is a great idea, and for the RAF I'd support at least doubling our six-aircraft fleet). But a C-130/Transall/G-222/An-12 replacement is required by many nations (including the UK), and extensive post Cold War operational analysis has led many to the conclusion that an aircraft with a payload of about 40 tonnes is about right-sized to meet that requirement, while others have specific equipment (the US FCS vehicles, for example) that won't fit on a C-130..

So yet another C-130 derivative doesn't cut it in 2009, and nor does "buying three C-130Js instead of two A400Ms". The C-130/130J cabin is the wrong size, with the wrong cross section, and its payload is too small. And if you're going to re-design it to be a better and more useful size, with the right cross section and taking advantage of modern structural design techniques and modern materials, you might as well start from scratch.

But no-one (apart from Airbus) has done that, so there isn't a viable alternative to the A400M available in the near term.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:04 pm



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 94):
I will be shocked if someone can point out a military procurement since the P-51 that wasn't late and grossly over budget.

On the original U-2 project, Lockheed actually came in under budget, and returned the money to the government! I also recall they delivered more airframes than the contract called for.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late?

Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:06 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 97):
....The C-130/130J cabin is the wrong size, with the wrong cross section, and its payload is too small....

The C-130 is the wrong size, but the C-160's that are currently in use, are acceptable? How does this make sense?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buckeyetech and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos