Ozair
Posts: 3790
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:36 am

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?


Sorry, over 8 billion Euro, not 9 billion, a few of the different websites I read listed US compared to euro figures.

Airbus Takes €436M Charge for A400M Program But Agrees New Contract

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.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... tract.html
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:17 am

Thank you for the details. Very helpful.

Is airbus still involved w Ariane launch vehicle?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:25 am

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
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:53 pm

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?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
brindabella
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:31 pm

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?


Revelation,

please PLEASE keep pushing this "RLI" thing.

(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.)

I understand that you just have to say:
"but I worked so hard & I didn't deserve all the bad luck!"

And then he bursts into tears and asks if "just forgiving the Loan is enough - do you need any more????".

Boy, I will make him weep his heart out! :yes:

cheers :D
Billy
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:55 pm

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.)

Yes, it would be great to find that Banker, who also says "Don't think about paying me monthly, you don't have to pay me anything till your customer pays you first!".

I keep looking for him and can't seem to find him.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12774
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:37 am

Give me No Tax over anything Reimbursable :checkmark:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:35 am

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


Thanks for the info. Do you understand the p/l impact the Ariane business on AB?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:13 pm

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.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:27 pm

keesje wrote:


Really? Your first article shows Boeing is paying more tax than before, and is only addressing federal income tax whereas the arguments center on state taxes which Boeing pays a large amount of.

Image

So much for your claim of 'no taxes'.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:03 am

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.


Two thoughts.

1) I don't think NATO countries sell much military equipment to China because (a) they're a rival, not an ally and (b) they will sometimes steal your tech and make copies/derivatives.

2) I would image the A400 is less complicated and less costly than the C-17, which has sold to 53 frames to Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, NATO, Qatar, UAE, and the UK.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:12 am

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.


The Ivory Coast military budget is ~ $500M, for the whole thing. Army, Navy, Air Force, procurement, and personal.

Their largest aircraft is a 727, which has not flown (I think) since 2012. Next is a single Gulfstream.

How many A400s do you think they might buy?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:22 am

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?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:31 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
The Ivory Coast military budget is ~ $500M, for the whole thing. Army, Navy, Air Force, procurement, and personal.

Their largest aircraft is a 727, which has not flown (I think) since 2012. Next is a single Gulfstream.

How many A400s do you think they might buy?

Well, here's their first C-295W. One step at a time, I guess.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:09 pm

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.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:50 am

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.


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
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:59 pm

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?


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
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:43 pm

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.


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. 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.

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. 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. 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.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3790
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:18 am

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.

There is unlikely to be any savings from an export unless the production rate was increased and increasing production by approx. 20 aircraft (a realistic expectation for future orders) would only see a 10% increase in the total order book. That is insignificant for long term maintenance and sustainability of the total fleet.

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.

Most of the current delivered aircraft could be called orphans anyway. That was a major reason for the production reduction, to allow Airbus the time and ability to rectify existing aircraft while delivering new aircraft. Every one of those delivered aircraft being rectified is going to cost Airbus.

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.

There is no comparison between a commercial delivery of an airliner to a military developed capability. ANA and JL did not fund one single cent of the development cost of the 787 (only via an acquisition cost which was clearly much less than Boeing was spending to build the airframe, let alone funding development…).

Yes early F-35 acquirers did pay a higher price but they were all development partners in the program so their industry directly benefitted from those sales. They also had the ability to upgrade their legacy fleets earlier improving their capability.

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.

Yes Finland will pay less, as will Canada who originally intended deliveries to begin in 2016 but those nations pay a price in delayed capability for that.

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.

That isn’t an accurate representation of the fleet. The USMC went IOC with Blk 2B which was capable of the IOC mission types they required and was declared combat capable.

Yes the fleet of early aircraft delivered will need to be upgraded, and this funding has already been set aside by the US services, but this isn’t exactly a surprise and in fact the F-35 was designed to allow these upgrades to occur far more seamlessly than previous aircraft. Early US F-16s were passed on to ANG units after only a few years and then passed on again to countries like Israel. The Eurofighter has the entire Tranche One jets that cannot be economically upgraded to the later T2 or T3 standards. The French spent more then US$30 million per early Rafale to upgrade them to the vanilla F3 standard and will require further funding upgrade to get to 3F.

As for how many aircraft, below are the figures,
108 birds in pre Block 3F configuration:

26 require SW only upgrades (3 days/aircraft)
19 require all of the above and new signal processor cards (+ 0 days/aircraft)
18 require all of the above and the newer HMDS (+15 days/aircraft)
45 require all of the above and TR2 (+30 days/aircraft)

Much of that work can be done when the aircraft come in for depot maintenance so the down time is not actually as impactful as it is made out to be. Additionally, partners such as Australia already updated their early Blk 2B jets to the 3i standard, a larger upgrade than going from Blk 3i to Blk 3F which is mostly just software.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:42 am

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


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.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:28 am

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.


Really not sure what you expect me to say, but honestly, Airbus would be better off building what is on the order books now and shutting the line down. The program is a financial basket case and is dragging Airbus down. They've swallowed one hard in pill and are shutting the 380 down, it's time to do the same with the A400.

Not judging the technical aspects of the aircraft, no doubt in the future it will mature into a versatile work horse for the air forces that have it, but the whole program has been poorly executed and was overly ambitious in regards to the market and potential sales. The staff working on it can be redeployed to other Airbus products, it's not like they have a shortage of aircraft to build and its not like the program will end tomorrow. There are still aircraft to build, mods to be done, future maintenance to be carried out, which will keep the current workforce going and allow gradual reduction in numbers dedicated to the A400 program.
 
Noray
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:58 pm

As part of earlier renegotiations, the program partners have lended Airbus money that they will only get back in case of exports. So, yes, they will be happy if Airbus exports more A400Ms.

BTW, it's always strange to see how everybody's worried about the financial well-being of Airbus, even the most pronounced US fanboys. Of course, it's not at the back of their minds that the loss of a competitor would be a relief for Lockheed. :lol:

Meanwhile, Airbus have continued with the certification tests of the Cargo Hold Tanks refueling unit, including enhancements of the night refueling vision system and preliminary testing of helicopter air-to-air refueling capabilities. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... -unit.html
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:48 pm

As of previous discussions, the idea to add another test specimen have not developed and the 3 current test frame are on duty. MSN4, 6 and 56.

MSN4 successfully completed certification flight tests for the Cargo Hold Tanks.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... -unit.html

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 !

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.


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:
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.


All the credit no, Bremen factory is also to be credited.
For sure SanPablo plant (Casa historic FAL) had a really hard time to adopt Airbus way of working and reporting. For a long period they were in mode “we’ll do it our way, we don’t need those french/german/british to tell us what to do” until it has been clear the french/german/british didn’t want to tell what to do, just work together. Lot of time lost.
But there is a part often missed, the fuselage (except nose cone) comes from Bremen fully equipped, and for years they failed to do so and delivered section with an awful lot of outstanding work. Hundreds of german employee to finish their work in the FAL also caused a massive drag in the program industrialization.

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.

Tom Enders tried renegociate the contract twice because it is currently rigged in the customer favor.
Believe me or not, Airbus paid a late delivery compensation for MSN53 to French AF because it had to be delivered in 2016, actual delivery date January 2nd 2017, even though the aircraft was sitting on the ramp, ready the final custome acceptance flight during all December, waiting for the FAF crew to perform said flight. => they didn’t show up before January 2nd.
What a surprise OCCAR refuse to renogiate the contract eh ?
I can very much see Airbus undercut OCCAR customer prices, they can do it. Since 2015 al l the provisions Airbus booked on the program are purely contractual, the industrial now knows how to build the thing in time and in cost. The pill wouldn't be too difficult to swallow politically if the product offer is a Low Cost version as explained above.


All in all, I very much agree the program is not in a good shape. However suggesting Airbus should pull the plug like they did with A380 is a bit premature. I think there is a way to develop a low cost version and continue develop another usefull capacity (disaster relief, firefighting, will be very welcome capacity in close future). Obviously it will never sell by the hundreds but it doesn’t need that anyway.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3790
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:45 am

Some good comments from the Malaysian Air Force regarding their use of the A400M in recent years and discussing the first A2A refueling with Malaysian fighter jets including the Su-30MKMs.

Malaysian pilot details A400M missions, midair refueling experience
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.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... xperience/
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3670
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:55 am

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.

I don't understand why the sentiment is to "Can" the A400M and not finish it's development. the airplane is just different. I see nowhere that the USAF would ever want it but I'm sure it has a place in Europe and Africa. What I see is? Since it hasn't found the favor some might have wanted as compared to the C130, some are ready to throw cold water on the Project. Were it an American project? the vertical Stabilizer and the rudders would be larger, The Engines all turning the same direction to reduce logistical costs. A load management system installed to readily make it just another Freighter in the US arsenal, and it get STOL capability and rough field landing capability, Now? It might have that already but Airbus is not moving the goal posts very quickly. Other than that? It appears to be good for what they think it can do so far,
 
mxaxai
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:19 pm

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.

Not to be confused with a low-level drop, where the loads (usually) get extracted by parachute. (https://youtu.be/O1DkhFT2GTw) Another feature that will be on the A400M. This archived article/press release gives a nice overview of the various aerial delivery features: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... paras.html
The A400M is fitted with a winch which allows hung-up paratroopers to be safely and comfortably retrieved and pulled back into the aircraft.

Loads can be extracted through the ramp by gravity or with parachutes. It is possible to drop a single load of up to four tonnes (8,800 lb) by gravity, or up to 16 tonnes (35,000 lb) with parachutes, or multiple loads with a combined weight of up to 25 tonnes (55,000 lb). It is also able to deliver in the same pass loads and paratroopers through the ramp. The A400M is also able to perform from the paratrooper doors, at altitudes up to 25,000 ft, manual delivery of light loads arranged in bundles using static line or free fall technique.

For very low level extraction, (as low as five metres / 15 ft), up to three individual loads, with a maximum payload weight of 19 tonnes (42,000 lb) can be extracted in a single flight pass, with parachutes which pull the material out of the aircraft.

A “Computed Air Release Point” (CARP) system linked to the automated load release system helps the loadmaster and crew to manage the extraction of the material. It is also integrated into the Head Up Display (HUD), allowing the crew to monitor the drop sequence.

When everything is done, you'll be able to precisely deliver loads with only two pilots and one loadmaster. And the loadmaster doesn't even have to leave his seat. Meanwhile, the system does all the calculating for you: Center of gravity, fuel burn, maneuver load limits, release point, etc. It's a quite capable load management system.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:43 pm

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.

Thanks as always for your insightful point of view.

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.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:43 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:47 am

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.


Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate as I get a bit lost with all the different way to deliver loads…

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.


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
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:32 pm

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

I agree the move to AD&S is a positive one. Even still, the question of who would order the simplified A400M and how many would they order needs to be asked and answered before funds even for the simple work to be done. All the founding nations seem to have as many as they need on order, and some are still trying to work out a way to sell excess frames. That seems to be an impediment to future sales.

The quote you provided may help answer some of Planeflyer's question:

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 option to just buy C-130s is always going to keep price pressure on A400M.

I couldn't find a current article, but https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -p-417970/ and https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... f-service/ from end 2015 says USAF has given it a multi year production deal that allows it produce at a rate of 24 per year, 16 per year being USAF alone. I'm not sure where they are with regard to intentional sales (FR and DE have been contributing to it), but the USAF purchase alone allows them to have twice the production rate of A400M, and the rule of thumb is doubling production rates drops costs 8%, so it gives C-130 a big advantage in margin. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-02 ... s-Aircraft says there are over 400 C-130J in service while Wiki suggests A400M is at 80 or so, and the family as a whole has been in production for 60 years. This means training and spares cost are spread across a big base of operators, which lowers customer's costs and eases their introduction to the ecosystem.

The USAF has long term plans for the C-130J. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/ ... ofits.aspx says:

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.

So the margin advantage will persist for the foreseeable future.

While A400M is bigger, that may or may not be an advantage depending on what you are trying to do, just like A380. Its lower production rate suggests it will never be at price parity even after allowing for its higher capacity. Its main hope is to outlast the C-130J, but it seems the USAF will be a buyer through 2026 and we could even see that date extended.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:50 pm

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 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.

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.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:20 pm

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.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:35 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:15 pm

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.

Maybe if you want a higher quality discussion you should avoid using words like delusional.... Just sayin'....
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Catfry
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:48 pm

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
Posts: 13178
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:09 pm

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.


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?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:48 pm

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?

Nice tangent you're marching along.

Of course US politicians are going to boast about US products and EU products boast about theirs as well.

Of course US politicians would prefer all allies buy and operate US equipment such as KC-46 just as EU politicians would prefer all allies buy and operate EU equipment such as KC330.

This doesn't seem to at all be related to the comments made by Catfry.

Personally I think it's great that EU militaries have meaningful air transportation capabilities. The sad part IMHO the effort to provide this was started in 1982 ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas ) for Cold War missions, and is only coming on line now, but better late than never.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
GDB
Posts: 13178
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:46 pm

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...
 
texl1649
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:44 pm

It’s still interesting to ponder that if the A400M had been closer to budget, and used the proposed Pratt engines instead of the ones selected, there’s a good chance it would have seen US service, imho. Could be wrong, but at a lower price with US/Canadian engines and a possible Alabama assembly site, I could have seen it fitting in well.
 
FW200
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:29 pm

Nice video showing Luftwaffe's A400M at Wunstorf AFB taken two months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAyvIf_Dxn8
 
Catfry
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:04 pm

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
 
JJT
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:16 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:25 am

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



Yup, watched these a dozen times before....great sound and an absolute beast of an aircraft. As I saw someone on another forum recently state:

“When you compare the A400M to the C-130J on costs alone the C-130J wins hands down, but on all other metrics, even on its ground pressure footprint, it runs a poor second.”

Whoever said that summed it up pretty well in my opinion.....and I love the Herc’s.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:42 pm

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...


The P51 was, to a considerable degree, an Anglo-American joint venture.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12040
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:51 pm

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


The US operated the B-57 which was a license built English Electric Canberra?

And you also bought a large quantity of Eurocopter Lakotas and have just chosen the MH-139.

And the US Army bought a load of C-27J Spartans as well.

If you don’t have it you buy it from somewhere else. I don’t see a problem with that.
 
GDB
Posts: 13178
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:07 pm

Yes to all of the points in the above posts, I did say however reliant as the US was with foreign aircraft 100 years ago, not since then.
The recent tracking of the Dragon 2 re-entry from a B-57 reminds of the exceptions.
Though not in time for USAF service, the original rationale for buying then building as the B-57, the Canberra, was from the Korean war. An urgent need with not only an existing aircraft but one really in a class of it's own at that point.
Not that it would be new and modern when the USAF did take the B-57 to war, in Vietnam.

I would add the original order for the Harrier, from the USMC, in 1968. These AV-8A's were straight from the factory then in Kingston, SW of London.
After an option for close air support not tied to big decks or runways like the fleet of F-4's and A-4's, again nothing else was around to do it.

Whereas the USAF has such a large fleet of both C-130's and C-17's with so much overlap, there is no reason for them buy the A400M, having C-5's no doubt affects how the USAF sometimes uses it's C-17's too.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:47 pm

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
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:52 pm

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.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3670
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:23 am

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.


Well? Make the Case! Let's see if it holds water!! I think you're blowing smoke!
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:50 pm

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.


I thought the second article was pretty definitive too.
Couldnt be that much of a challenge I would think. Especially with South Africa no longer purchasing the A400m. The logistics doesn't seem like it would make sense. I'm surprised it went on this long to be honest.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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