Planeflyer wrote:

Ozair wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

It really depends on the export sale. The US FMS program requires that nations pay towards the non-recurring costs, both for development and for production, but nations are able to obtain a waiver for these costs. The waivers can be granted to NATO partners, Australia, Japan etc in instances were the acquisition advances US interest in standardisation. I’d expect every F-35 acquirer will not pay NC costs given the standardisation argument.

jupiter2 wrote:

As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?

Exactly. The argument was nonsensical and not only that but when FMS sales occur, which happened with Japan and South Korea, they pay the price the US pays for the aircraft in that year, plus admin fees above.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

[Generally the risk sharing partners get a benefit from having a set percentage of construction contracts going to their countries. This is what's happening with the F-35 for example. So any sales on top of the base orders become profit for the countries that threw money into development. At the purchase end it's whatever a country can negotiate with the builder.

The A400M context is slightly different though. In 2011 the deal for bailout cash included each of the partners paying an “export levy facility” to EADS. The intent was that EADS would pay this money back out of future export sales. So far no export sale has occurred since that date…

Let’s be clear though, there is no way that any export success would allow the program to break even. Airbus has taken approximately nine billion Euro in write offs on this program, not including the additional funding sums that the partner governments have provided. The acquisition price of the aircraft, even counting for inflation, is about twice what it was advertised.


Another article on the potential for the Spanish to seel a portion of their aircraft to South Korea and even then they want to shed 13 aircraft but South Korea is only interested in four to six.

Korea enters transport planes talks with Spain

South Korea has started talks with Spain about a potential sale of KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets in exchange for military transport aircraft Airbus A400M.
Korea’s officials said the Ministry of National Defense and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) have been reviewing Spain’s proposal to trade some of its A-400M transport planes, made by Airbus, for KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets produced by KAI.
Spain made the offer “through an unofficial route” in July 2018 at the Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom.
According to the Korea Times English-language newspapers, Spain has reportedly ordered 27 A-400Ms from Airbus. But has decided to sell 13 of them and received consent from Airbus.
It is reportedly hoping to deliver four to six A-400Ms to Korea in return for 30 KT-1s and 20 T-50s.
Also reported that if the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.
According to Airbus, the A400M is the most advanced, proven and certified airlifter available, combining 21st century state-of-the-art technologies to fulfill the current and upcoming Armed Forces’ needs. The A400M combines the capability to carry strategic loads with the ability to deliver even into tactical locations with small and unprepared airstrips. And in addition it acts as a frontline-tanker for other aircraft.

https://defence-blog.com/news/korea-ent ... spain.html

do you have details on the timing of the 9 billion Euro write off?

Airbus announced this morning that it had taken a new charge of €436 million for the A400M program in its 2018 accounts, bringing its total since the program began to over €8 billion.

This unexpected charge, added to the delays in ratifying a new contract amendment agreed a year ago, and continued program risks suggest that, almost halfway through its production run, the A400M is not out of the woods.

As part of today’s statement on Airbus’ 2018 financial results, CEO Tom Enders also revealed that Airbus had agreed a new re-baselining of the program with the partner nations, which is now going through national “approval processes [and] should conclude in the coming months.”

“The contract amendment is expected to be formalised during the first half of this year, upon conclusion of national approval processes,” a source said.

Airbus signed a Declaration of Intent (DoI) in February 2018 on the contract amendment with the customer Nations, “agreeing on a global re-baselining of the contract, including a revised aircraft delivery schedule, an updated technical capability roadmap and a revised retrofit schedule.”

The fact that it has still not been ratified 12 months later suggests that some nations disagree with the new contract terms. Germany is often pointed out as having consistently pushed for a hard line against Airbus.

Also in today’s statement, Airbus CEO Enders adds that “All in all, we have achieved significant de-risking of the A400M in 2018,” without detailing any de-risking measures.

However, the statement also states that “Risks remain on the development of technical capabilities and the associated costs, on securing sufficient export orders in time, on aircraft operational reliability in particular with regards to engines, and on cost reductions as per the revised baseline,” which appears to limit the scope of the “de-risking” mentioned by Enders.

As we announced on Jan. 28, Airbus said it delivered 17 A400M aircraft during the year, down from 19 in 2017.

It also “continued with development activities toward achieving the revised capability roadmap. Retrofit activities are progressing in line with the customer-agreed plan,” again without providing any other details. An Airbus spokesman declined to provide additional information.

The latest financial charge is explained as being due to “An update of the contract estimate at completion [which] triggered a net additional charge of € 436 million on the programme,” mainly reflecting “the outcome of the negotiations and updated estimates on the export scenario, escalation and some cost increases.”

A year ago, announcing its 2017 financial results on Feb. 15, Airbus said it had taken a €1.3-billion charge against the A400M, but “promised that the charge would draw a line under the contract after years of cost overruns and performance setbacks,” Reuters reported at the time.

“After agreeing a ‘new baseline’ for deliveries and capabilities with the program's seven government launch customers earlier this month, Airbus' remaining exposure going forward is expected to be more limited," the group said a year ago, a hope that has been dashed by the new €436 million charge announced today.

Planeflyer wrote:

Thank you for the details. Very helpful.

Is airbus still involved w Ariane launch vehicle?

ArianeGroup formerly Airbus Safran Launchers is a joint venture of the
European aerospace company Airbus and the French group Safran

Noray wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has lost $billions, continues to do so, and is asking for another round of give backs by the customers.

They're not asking for another round. The negotiations are complete, the result is awaiting parliamentary approval.

Revelation wrote:

Noray wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has lost $billions, continues to do so, and is asking for another round of give backs by the customers.

They're not asking for another round. The negotiations are complete, the result is awaiting parliamentary approval.

Semantics. I guess the give backs are automatic, just like forgiving A380 and A340 RLI? Wink wink?

brindabella wrote:

(I'm trying to get a lead on this Banker who is such a nice guy that he just forgives Loans if you have had a really bad time.)

WIederling wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Thank you for the details. Very helpful.

Is airbus still involved w Ariane launch vehicle?

as I understand it YES:

ArianeGroup formerly Airbus Safran Launchers is a joint venture of the
European aerospace company Airbus and the French group Safran

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArianeGroup

keesje wrote:

Give me No Tax over anything Reimbursable

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Give me No Tax over anything Reimbursable

How reimbursable is a loan that is forgiven if unpaid?

Who has a no tax agreement?

Do tell.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Give me No Tax over anything Reimbursable

How reimbursable is a loan that is forgiven if unpaid?

Who has a no tax agreement?

Do tell.

Off topic, Boeing, but they are absolute masters in that area.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-pays-federal-income-tax-for-third-year-in-a-row/
https://chicagoist.com/2017/04/28/boeing_pays_just_01_of_its_profits.php
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders
https://crosscut.com/2013/10/inslee-pushes-win-boeing-777x-project
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeings-charleston-tax-breaks-top-800m-60-years-and-counting-for-airplane-tax-break/

On topic,

https://www.janes.com/article/86663/south-korea-confirms-potential-aircraft-swap-deal-with-spain
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/german-halt-in-saudi-arms-sales-causing-serious-problems-airbus

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.

FIFY.

Ozair wrote:

No one denies the capability of the aircraft but even Airbus is aware the market for the A400M is limited.

Airbus confident of A400M exports but says numbers may be modest

Airbus remains confident that it can secure export customers for its A400M airlifter, but has cautioned that sales are likely to be relatively modest given the aircraft’s cost and sophistication.

Speaking at the company’s annual press conference in Toulouse, CEO Tom Enders said that efforts continue to secure the first export customer for the type since Malaysia joined the programme in 2005, but that the aircraft’s superior capabilities and associated price-tag make it a challenging prospect compared to Airbus’ popular portfolio of smaller transport aircraft.

“Exporting the A400M is a very different game from the smaller transports built [at the same location] in Spain. The A400M is a product of the requirements of six [partner] nations who are very sophisticated, and you just don’t find those kind of customers around every corner,” Enders said on 14 February, adding, “I am optimistic that there will be exports, but it won’t be in the hundreds [of aircraft].”

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Costly and sophisticated to the point where the market its limited to those with high budgets and high sophistication, but not as high as the US who would prefer to manufacture their own design.

Is China viewed as a potential customer, or don't they prefer to roll their own too?

It seemed for a long time that A380 was hoping China would come along and save it but eventually that hope was forlorn. Macron's gift of a horse and offer of a finishing line didn't sway the Chinese.

It seems the A400M may end up in the same place as A380, a product so costly and sophisticated it limited its own market appeal.

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

It is loss making because of the high development costs (still ongoing but will come to an end soon), ongoing reliability issues & retrofits and the inefficient production, which is a result of politics.

I don't think politics had much to do with Airbus being unable to deliver to requirements and schedule. Sure a very tight contract held them to the letter but frankly the taxpayers of the respective partner nations should be happy with that.

Perhaps I worded that poorly. The development fuck-up is 90% Airbus' fault. But the distributed, inefficient production is mostly the result of politics. I think you could easily reduce the production cost by 20% or more by streamlining the production, but the original partner countries won't allow that. Airbus internal politics, which are related to external pressure, also led to poor cooperation between the various development teams and subcontractors.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

At 8 per year and a remaining backlog of exactly 100 aircraft, production can stretch until 2031 without any new orders.

How is that rate a good thing for the aircraft. It is nowhere near enough to manufacture efficiently. That lower rate also makes it less likely exports can be easily incorporated into the line and likely increases the opportunity to partners nations to sell their airframes, either used or directly off the line.

Unless someone orders more than a dozen it should be fine. Germany and Spain will happily delay a few deliveries by a year or two.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Well, there are some countries that have more money than they can spend but not enough to build their own. Most of them may not feel comfortable buying from Russia or China. Circumstances can also change; a country that only needs the C-295 today may want something larger in 10 or 15 years. Thailand and the Ivory Coast, for example, recently ordered a C-295 each. Perhaps they'll come back for some A400M in a few years?

Thailand and Ivory Coast... seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Just because they're not first world countries doesn't mean that they're too poor to afford new military equipment.

jupiter2 wrote:

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

kitplane01 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

Let's suppose some nations offers to pay more than the marginal cost to produce the air frames, but less than the total cost (including development) that the UK and Germany are paying. They credibly say that's their max offer.

You will MAKE money if you say yes.
They will pay less than Germany/UK if you say yes.

What do you say?

jupiter2 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

Let's suppose some nations offers to pay more than the marginal cost to produce the air frames, but less than the total cost (including development) that the UK and Germany are paying. They credibly say that's their max offer.

You will MAKE money if you say yes.
They will pay less than Germany/UK if you say yes.

What do you say?

No.

kitplane01 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Let's suppose some nations offers to pay more than the marginal cost to produce the air frames, but less than the total cost (including development) that the UK and Germany are paying. They credibly say that's their max offer.

You will MAKE money if you say yes.
They will pay less than Germany/UK if you say yes.

What do you say?

No.

Can you explain this?

I'm not asking what you think is fair. You already said that, and were clear. Given the choice of more jobs, more profit, why do you say "no"? And do you understand that most would say yes?

jupiter2 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

No.

Can you explain this?

I'm not asking what you think is fair. You already said that, and were clear. Given the choice of more jobs, more profit, why do you say "no"? And do you understand that most would say yes?

Well unless there is a chance of subsequent unit costs coming down for the rest of the aircraft to be produced, I don't see any value in adding a small number of orders. If it was a sizeable order that maybe different. It is highly unlikely that current customers would sit idly be while a new customer is getting a better deal than them and why should they ? They have borne the brunt of the delays, cost overruns, deficiency in performance, to then see a new customer walk in and get a matured version of the aircraft at a lower cost, will not happen. Strictly speaking, the program is never going to make money for Airbus, so adding a small number of aircraft at slightly above cost, is not going to benefit the program in the long term.

tjh8402 wrote:

At a minimum, more sales should benefit all program participants as that typically brings down production and maintenance costs, and the larger fleet will inevitably help extend the plane’s cost effective service life.

tjh8402 wrote:

Having an orphan fleet inevitably gets quite expensive: witness Germany’s challenge going forward with the Tornado. Besides, as Airbus shareholders and having Airbus factories on their soil, the various European governments will inevitably benefit from any sales of the plane that are above costs.

tjh8402 wrote:

As far as fairness, that’s what happens when you’re a launch or early customer. ANA, JL, and other early customers bore the brunt of the 787s problems while paying more for less capable planes. The same goes for early customers of the F-35.

tjh8402 wrote:

If Finland buys Block 4 F-35s for $80 million each, they’ll end up spending less $ on a way more capable plane than the USAF, USMC, or anyone else who spent ~$150+ million on the first Block 1 and 2 birds.

tjh8402 wrote:

The US has nearly 200 F-35s that were early builds and were extremely expensive to procure, but aren’t combat capable and will cost a lot of $ to upgrade.

jupiter2 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

No.

Can you explain this?

I'm not asking what you think is fair. You already said that, and were clear. Given the choice of more jobs, more profit, why do you say "no"? And do you understand that most would say yes?

Well unless there is a chance of subsequent unit costs coming down for the rest of the aircraft to be produced, I don't see any value in adding a small number of orders

kitplane01 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Can you explain this?

I'm not asking what you think is fair. You already said that, and were clear. Given the choice of more jobs, more profit, why do you say "no"? And do you understand that most would say yes?

Well unless there is a chance of subsequent unit costs coming down for the rest of the aircraft to be produced, I don't see any value in adding a small number of orders

When you wrote "I don't really see any value in adding a small number of orders" ... why don't you consider more profit (although not enough to clear all the losses) and more jobs to Airbus workers to be of value?

I think that's the point of our disagreement. Those things seem of value to me. Why don't you value them?

(Just anticipating what you might write) They're not everything, but their better than nothing and if it's my job on the line they're pretty good.

Slug71 wrote:

I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.

Revelation wrote:

It seems the A400M may end up in the same place as A380, a product so costly and sophisticated it limited its own market appeal.

mxaxai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Initial A400M problems can be assigned to CASA, Spain fending of controlling from Airbus core
hiding the massively overweight status of the design.

I think it's not fair to give CASA all the credit. But yes, relations between Airbus proper and CASA were poor until CASA was fully integrated into Airbus in 2009.

jupiter2 wrote:

It is highly unlikely that current customers would sit idly be while a new customer is getting a better deal than them and why should they ? They have borne the brunt of the delays, cost overruns, deficiency in performance, to then see a new customer walk in and get a matured version of the aircraft at a lower cost, will not happen. Strictly speaking, the program is never going to make money for Airbus, so adding a small number of aircraft at slightly above cost, is not going to benefit the program in the long term.

Malaysia has detailed its experience with the Airbus A400M airlifter to Defense News, discussing recent disaster relief operations where it successfully operated on a compromised runway and touting the aircraft’s air-to-air refueling certification with the country’s fighter jets.

Speaking to media at the Avalon Airshow in Australia, where a Royal Malaysian Air Force A400M is on static display, A400M pilot Maj. Hasan, who has flown several types of aircraft over his 20-year RMAF career, called the A400M “the best aircraft that I have flown.” (The officer’s name appears as such because Malays do not have family names, the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains.)

He detailed the use of the A400M in humanitarian assistance and disaster operations, with the service having deployed the plane on such missions to Bangladesh, Laos and the Philippines since it was first delivered to Malaysia in 2015. These missions also included a deployment to Palu on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi following a deadly earthquake and tsunami that devastated towns and villages in the western part of the island in late September 2018.

During that mission, the A400M demonstrated its ability to bring in outsized loads that smaller airlifters were unable to carry, and still operate from runways on which larger, heavier aircraft were unable to operate. These included carrying a 22-ton excavator on one occasion and 21 tons of relief supplies on another.

Hasan noted the runway at Palu normally handled aircraft weighing no more than 70 to 80 tons, and was weakened by the quake and further damaged by other aircraft landing with relief supplies. When it was proposed the A400M, which weighed approximately 120 tons with its load, be allowed to operate to and from the airport, Indonesian authorities expressed concern, Hasan added.

However, planning by the RMAF crew found that due to the load being distributed among the A400M’s 12-wheel main undercarriage and its tires being designed for rough airstrips, the pavement classification number of 36 was something the A400M could handle, which convinced the authorities to allow the A400M to operate from the airport. the major said..

The pavement classification number is an International Civil Aviation Organization standard used to indicate the strength of a runway, taxiway or airport apron/ramp.

Hasan also touched on the air-to-air refueling work Malaysia has conducted on the A400M. Starting in May 2018, refueling trials were conducted with the A400M using RMAF Boeing F/A-18D Hornets, Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30MKM fighters and BAE Systems Hawk trainer/light-attack jets as receivers.

The trials were conducted with both receiver types throughout the flight envelope and various flight parameters, according to Hasan, successfully allowing the RMAF to certify the receiver types in accordance with standard NATO air-to-air refueling procedures, dispelling rumors in some quarters about the Russian jet’s compatibility with the A400M.

Malaysia then deployed a single A400M and F/A-18Ds to northern Australia in August to take part in the multinational air combat exercise Pitch Black, where the two aircraft types conducted a number of air-to-air refueling sorties. However, the RMAF A400Ms did not refuel any other receivers at the exercise.

Malaysia operates four A400Ms with the RMAF’s 22 Squadron based at Subang Airport, located in Malaysia’s capital Kuala Lumpur. Airbus is marketing the A400M to New Zealand, which is seeking a replacement for its Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules and Boeing 757 transport aircraft. A decision on the program is expected later this year.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

That won't be possible. At the very least, all orders from the partner nations will have to be delivered and they're not really in a rush to take them.

Of course, I'm not saying cut production today and stop delivering aircraft but they could easily run the production down and deliver to existing orders. Once that is done finish the program and get it off the books given it is loss making and will remain loss making for its entire life.

mxaxai wrote:

There are still hundreds of old C-130, An-12 and Il-76 in operation around the globe. There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either). Potential operaters come from the middle east, north Africa, south & south-east Asia and also Europe. Remember that, currently, the A400M is the heaviest western transport in production, except for the niche C-2.

Wishful thinking at best. Even Enders doesn't expect those orders to come and given the competition in the market with the KC-390, C-130J, C-2, IL-476, Y-20 and a likely new medium Chinese transport there is little reason to acquire an A400M. As already established multiple times in the A400M threads there are so few nations that have the transport requirement set the A400M provides, clearly acknowledged again by Enders in the janes article above, so why buy that extra capability and all the costs that come associated with it.

mxaxai wrote:

Most features will be delivered by 2021 and most remaining bugs will also be found and fixed by then. The A400M hasn't seen much service beyond basic logistic missions. Showing its capabilities in combat or in exercises may convince a few potential buyers.

I don't understand this fascination with equipment being proved in combat, especially in the case of a medium transport. Any prospective buyer with a half decent procurement agency would have a very good idea of the operational and life cycle costs of the airframe without it ever having to see combat.

Grizzly410 wrote:

I’m afraid you can be both right but the thing is not dead yet and at rate 8/year you don’t need much sales to protect the line for years.
Years ago Airbus start studying the doability to design a green aircraft, a basic one stripping capabilities and provision which are currently embedded in the basic frame.
Once capabilities development will slow down (IRC 2021 all contractual capabilities should be certified), resources will be free to continue the study and maybe market a less sophisticated, cheaper version. Removing some Cargo & Defense features and the incorporated provisions can save 3-4t without much efforts. Add to this a weight saving exercise, which as far as I know would be the first, could strip more. Getting close to the 70t empty weight, 40t payload, able to go nearly anywhere an Hercs goes, so effectively replacing two for less than double the price. IMO it can build some market appeal.

mxaxai wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Next focus for the test fleet is the Combat off-load (improved version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM3ZQ_7htq4), Paratroopers Crossover and first trials for the Helicopter PODs !

Thanks for the update!
However, your video shows a CDS drop, which is more or less a standard drop with a certain type of container that can be loaded in two rows. Combat off-load is closer to this: https://youtu.be/r69g6JWwxys So you advance the thrust levers while holding the brakes. Once the brakes are released, the aircraft accelerates but inertia lets the the unlocked loads slip out at the back.

Revelation wrote:

It seems to me Airbus will have spent a lot of money to get to this point, and will keep spending money through 2021 to meet prior commitments, then will be asked to spend more on a weight saving exercise in the hopes of getting more customers. To me this seems unlikely to get approval, unless they had enough new orders in hand to fund such an effort. Maybe you know more, but we saw with A380 that the company did not have interest in speculatively funding new features or new models without orders in hand.

El Confidential wrote:

However, the Portuguese government pointed out in January that if Embraer did not reduce the price of the KC390, Portugal would consider resuming its initial idea of acquiring the Airbus A400M which is assembled in Seville (or even Lockheed Martin's Hercules). Portugal is not part of the consortium of six European countries that were the customers launchers of that aircraft, and neither did the attempts to sell the last decade. Both planes -KC390 vs. A400M- are very different, starting because their cargo capacity is 21 tons in the Brazilian compared to 37 tons in the European. Along with this, the Brazilian uses jet engines and the European, propeller, which makes it much more versatile. In other words, three Airbus aircraft would achieve the same result as the six Brazilians. Airbus sources, however, point out that this option in Portugal is not on the table right now, it is seen as a remote possibility.

Grizzly410 wrote:

I’d imagine the investment needed to bring the program to planned specification can’t be considered an additional financial effort.
Of course, like with A380, there will be no detailed design ready before an actual sale, and I admit weight saving exercise would be costly and difficult to get the funding. But you don’t need to go really deep to figure out the impact of removing a complete system/provision, have a look to what becomes overdesigned and then estimate the benefit/cost of the redesign.
I will also add that A400M, although being a really close cousin from A380 is not under Airbus civil umbrella anymore, it is under Airbus Defence and Space, you can’t really compare decision taken from branch and another. With the SCAF thing, I think this is very important for ADS to keep a complete range of product able to connect together, removing one of the more advanced product of the catalog doesn’t look like a wise move.

In other news, within an article about Boeing/Embraer merger there is this bit. I can understand Portugal trying to bargain, but not sure anyone can take this seriously, even less if Airbus doesn’t follow…
http://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/ ... a_1860734/

El Confidential wrote:

However, the Portuguese government pointed out in January that if Embraer did not reduce the price of the KC390, Portugal would consider resuming its initial idea of acquiring the Airbus A400M which is assembled in Seville (or even Lockheed Martin's Hercules). Portugal is not part of the consortium of six European countries that were the customers launchers of that aircraft, and neither did the attempts to sell the last decade. Both planes -KC390 vs. A400M- are very different, starting because their cargo capacity is 21 tons in the Brazilian compared to 37 tons in the European. Along with this, the Brazilian uses jet engines and the European, propeller, which makes it much more versatile. In other words, three Airbus aircraft would achieve the same result as the six Brazilians. Airbus sources, however, point out that this option in Portugal is not on the table right now, it is seen as a remote possibility.

Article in spanish, extract translated with http://www.deepl.com/translator

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m sorry, this may be a great plane but so was the 380......if it iso great why can’t they find enough customers to generate a return?

Seems like another market research failure.

The Air Force intends to buy quite a lot of Lockheed's C-130Js, although the precise number is not yet known -- nor is it known precisely when it will be buying the planes. Thus, this type of contract is referred to a "indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity," or IDIQ.

What is known is that the Air Force intends to spend as much as $10.02 billion on C-130Js through Aug. 18, 2026 -- so, 10 years from now.

And what will the Air Force get for all this money? According to the data crunchers at BGA-Aeroweb, the flyaway cost on a Lockheed Martin C-130J is currently $68.12 million. At that price, the Air Force appears to anticipate buying as many as 147 C-130s -- about 15% of the number of C-130 aircraft in service in all the militaries around the globe today.

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m sorry, this may be a great plane but so was the 380......if it iso great why can’t they find enough customers to generate a return?

Seems like another market research failure.

Noray wrote:

The A400M is not a product of market research, but was tailored to the needs of those who've actually ordered it. Also, that's an unfair equation since the A380 had been a complete product for many years before it was cancelled, while some of the A400M's features are still under development.

And in a world where one nation's military budget is as high as the following ten nations' combined, and the big nation promotes its own aircraft, it would be delusional to assume that the market for military aircraft is actually free.

Noray wrote:

From an economical point of view, it's not the main task of European military aircraft to capture the world market, but it's rather a question of whether or not we accept a monopoly.

Revelation wrote:

Noray wrote:

The A400M is not a product of market research, but was tailored to the needs of those who've actually ordered it. Also, that's an unfair equation since the A380 had been a complete product for many years before it was cancelled, while some of the A400M's features are still under development.

And in a world where one nation's military budget is as high as the following ten nations' combined, and the big nation promotes its own aircraft, it would be delusional to assume that the market for military aircraft is actually free.

Sure, it's free. EU is totally free to develop its economy to the scale of the US's. Sadly they seem to be unable to even keep the members it has. It is also free to spend as much on defense as it chooses to, yet it often chooses to spend money on a huge bureaucracy with many layers of overlapping and conflicting laws.

Noray wrote:

From an economical point of view, it's not the main task of European military aircraft to capture the world market, but it's rather a question of whether or not we accept a monopoly.

Silly me, I would think the main task of the European military would be to defend Europe using the best available hardware, rather than protecting its own sub scale monopolies.

Noray wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Noray wrote:

The A400M is not a product of market research, but was tailored to the needs of those who've actually ordered it. Also, that's an unfair equation since the A380 had been a complete product for many years before it was cancelled, while some of the A400M's features are still under development.

And in a world where one nation's military budget is as high as the following ten nations' combined, and the big nation promotes its own aircraft, it would be delusional to assume that the market for military aircraft is actually free.

Sure, it's free. EU is totally free to develop its economy to the scale of the US's. Sadly they seem to be unable to even keep the members it has. It is also free to spend as much on defense as it chooses to, yet it often chooses to spend money on a huge bureaucracy with many layers of overlapping and conflicting laws.

Noray wrote:

From an economical point of view, it's not the main task of European military aircraft to capture the world market, but it's rather a question of whether or not we accept a monopoly.

Silly me, I would think the main task of the European military would be to defend Europe using the best available hardware, rather than protecting its own sub scale monopolies.

Seems I touched a nerve there. Aren't we going a bit off topic? Please think twice before you launch the ICBMs.

Catfry wrote:

I have always thought it odd that there are not more interest in the a400m on this forum. After all it is so rare to see a new design with those kinds of features, like large turboprops, high wings, and t-tail. I guess most users are only interested in products they see in their daily life and have a chance to fly on.
Anyways, I wanted to mention that the 26th example has been delivered to the German air force. this represents a very large expansion of transport capacity. They went from 29 c-160 transalls, with a fleetwide tonnekilometre capacity of around 8-900 000, to now with the A400m a total of around 3½ million tonne kilometres. (figures derived from wikpedia)
The germans are using them for airbridges to Mashar-isharif, and various bases around the middle east, and to destinations in Mali and Niger as part of assistance for operation Barkhane. Especially the Afghanistan jobs were previously done mostly on american metal, and through third party suppliers like volga-Dnepr and Antonov airlines.
It seems to me like the expanded capability might lead Germany to be more active in logistics in joint operations.

GDB wrote:

Well that's no good, A400M might undermine the 'US does all the work' trope. God, for years they complained about how other NATO nations needed to increase their airlift capability - which they happened to be right about in this instance, with some notable examples proving the US's point.
Don't remember anything about this call for more capability being conditional on only buying from the US however. Is that what it's about, not defence, not solidarity with allies, but $?
Ever had the feeling we just cannot win? The 'little people' should know their place?

This attitude also reminds me of when the original A330 based tanker deal was overturned, some GOP clown crowed about how the US made aircraft and the 'French' should stick to food.
But how in the international market for tankers is the (not yet operational) KC-46 doing compared to the A330 MRTT?

Catfry wrote:

I will also recommend everyone watch, and listen to this clip af the RAF doing some low level training in the Welsh valleys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URSit14R9OE

This is more of the same Look how low he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kfnYL_lbXY

GDB wrote:

Yes but I think that most on this side of the pond don't think that the US should ever be over reliant on another power for military equipment, so don't expect masses of kit going to the US in key areas.
For instance, I doubt if anyone really thinks that the USAF would ever adopt the A400M, for a start they don't need to.
The original tanker deal was a surprise when Airbus got it.
So too was the original Marine One replacement, until it got gold plated into absurdity.

The last time the US was reliant on foreign aircraft was in WW1. 100 years ago.

The RAF was an early adopter of the C-130J, then had to wait several years for all the advertised features to actually become available.
So when taking the A400M to task on delays, worth remembering how the nearest competitor to it, an upgrade from the mass selling original C-130, from the same company, not an international consortium, did early in it's service.
Let he who is without sin and all that...

GDB wrote:

The last time the US was reliant on foreign aircraft was in WW1. 100 years ago.

Slug71 wrote:

South Africa's Denel may wind down manufacturing for Airbus A400M

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/af/idUSKCN1RB0N5

And another article on it,

http://m.engineeringnews.co.za/article/ ... 2019-04-01

South African State-owned defence industrial group Denel announced over the weekend that it had reached a mutual understanding with Europe-based major aerospace and defence group Airbus to cease Denel’s manufacture of components for the Airbus A400M military airlifter aircraft, “subject to fulfilling applicable legal prescripts”. Where the manufacture of these components will be moved to, Airbus has not yet disclosed.

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

IMHO one could make a case for sabotage from US aligned coalition of the willing countries.

And one could make the case that your unsubstantiated blaming of Europe's woes to the evil hand of the US is tiresome and against forum rules.

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

South Africa's Denel may wind down manufacturing for Airbus A400M

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/af/idUSKCN1RB0N5

And another article on it,

http://m.engineeringnews.co.za/article/ ... 2019-04-01

The second article is pretty definitive, no? Or is "fulfilling applicable legal prescripts" a challenge?

South African State-owned defence industrial group Denel announced over the weekend that it had reached a mutual understanding with Europe-based major aerospace and defence group Airbus to cease Denel’s manufacture of components for the Airbus A400M military airlifter aircraft, “subject to fulfilling applicable legal prescripts”. Where the manufacture of these components will be moved to, Airbus has not yet disclosed.