Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:52 pm

Sokes wrote:
@mxaxai:
O.k., I looked it up.
"And while Boeing's C17 can fly further and lift more, its jet engines need a full modern runway to take off and land; Grizzly can land on rough desert strips."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10631213
Grizzly means A400M.
Apparently the plane can land on desert sand. I'm surprised. Walking on sand is funny, I wonder what forces the plane has to face during touchdown.

By just looking at it one can tell the engine was a research project. Of course I can't judge if this was a welcome side effect or a main criteria to design the plane.
Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Design

The German Wikipedia says the planning were for 225 planes, but Italy and Portugal left the project, Germany and Turkey reduced the orders.
Orders now are 174 with 81 delivered.
Well, development is still ongoing. So let's see if it will really be a failure long term.

It looks like an offensive weapon. Why does Europe need such a plane?


Nice A380 analogy. The positive is the tech learned from designing such a large and hopefully efficient turboprop can be monetized in future civilian turboprop projects.
 
snasteve
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:32 pm

I’m not in this industry it’s just a hobby, but how does this work where Boeing has outsourced much of its production system like on the 787? For example the wings are made in Japan, Is there any tax advantage that way directly or indirectly from the Japanese government or local government? Perhaps not paid to Boeing but is reflected in a lower cost of the price of those components otherwise?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:59 pm

william wrote:
Nice A380 analogy. The positive is the tech learned from designing such a large and hopefully efficient turboprop can be monetized in future civilian turboprop projects.

It seems the current sized turboprops have enough challenges, not sure the world can support a much bigger one any more than it can support an all new double decker VLA. In particular the A400M turbos have had poor reliability and availability which would doom an airliner based on its engine. You'd like to think this is improving with time, but a gearbox with that much power being transferred is always going to be a challenge.
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
 
Sokes
Posts: 1310
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:52 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The engine is the result of trying to get a takeoff distance < 1000 m while also achieving M .72 at FL400 with 36 tons payload. The speed basically requires a turbofan while the STOL and rough field capability very much prefer a turboprop. So you get a very large unducted fan, sort of. And the gearbox that is required for this has caused headaches to no end.


That makes sense. So the knowledge gain was a side effect. I stand corrected.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:05 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Sokes wrote:
By just looking at it one can tell the engine was a research project. Of course I can't judge if this was a welcome side effect or a main criteria to design the plane.

The engine is the result of trying to get a takeoff distance < 1000 m while also achieving M .72 at FL400 with 36 tons payload. The speed basically requires a turbofan while the STOL and rough field capability very much prefer a turboprop. So you get a very large unducted fan, sort of. And the gearbox that is required for this has caused headaches to no end.


Interesting selling points for the A400M if it could achieve all of that. That explains the number of blades. Was it suppose to be fuel efficient too?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1310
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
It seems the current sized turboprops have enough challenges, not sure the world can support a much bigger one any more than it can support an all new double decker VLA. In particular the A400M turbos have had poor reliability and availability which would doom an airliner based on its engine. You'd like to think this is improving with time, but a gearbox with that much power being transferred is always going to be a challenge.


Keesje once posted a link to a youtube video about an A400 landing on mud and blowing air in front for fast slowdown. The ingested dust was just incredible. I can't judge how different designed these turbines are, but I guess there is a difference.
Are gearbox advances in aviation based on improvements with wind turbine gearboxes? Sudden gusts of wind were were tough on material when the technology was new. I believe there is a lot of improvement there. Of course a gearbox for a plane can't be heavy as a gearbox for a wind turbine.
But the gearboxes on the Neo don't make problems. Are the gearbox troubles on the A400 now over?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:37 pm

And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:56 pm

william wrote:
And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?

Customers said no.
 
snasteve
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:43 pm

william wrote:
And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?


What else is new available? The C-17 is out of production and every last one is utilized. Eventually someone will have to buy it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:58 pm

snasteve wrote:
william wrote:
And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?


What else is new available? The C-17 is out of production and every last one is utilized. Eventually someone will have to buy it.

It's hard to identify that "someone". Right now we have a very expensive airlifter with a unique payload/range curve that has shown poor reliability/availability. You will need to find a nation with a lot of financial resources and a need for high end tech and payload/range that can justify buying in to the program. So far the default fall back to C130 seems to be what the less wealthy nations are doing, and even many of the more wealthy nations such as DE and FR are buying C130s too.
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
 
tomcat
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:10 pm

william wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Sokes wrote:
By just looking at it one can tell the engine was a research project. Of course I can't judge if this was a welcome side effect or a main criteria to design the plane.

The engine is the result of trying to get a takeoff distance < 1000 m while also achieving M .72 at FL400 with 36 tons payload. The speed basically requires a turbofan while the STOL and rough field capability very much prefer a turboprop. So you get a very large unducted fan, sort of. And the gearbox that is required for this has caused headaches to no end.


Interesting selling points for the A400M if it could achieve all of that. That explains the number of blades. Was it suppose to be fuel efficient too?


It's also worth remembering that hadn't it been any political intervention back in 2003 (yep, 17 years ago!!), Airbus would have chosen the PW180 engine which was admittedly more mature and cheaper than his European competitor. The TP400 engine and the lack of leadership in the consortium that has designed it has been a huge drag for the A400M program as a whole. The same could be said about the design of the A400M itself and its industrial and design work sharing.

Also, the fact that the A400M has been designed pretty much in parallel with the A380 hasn't helped the A400M case when it came to staff its design team at Airbus.

About the engine selection:
https://www.flightglobal.com/usa-blasts-a400m-engine-choice/48248.article
 
olle
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:21 pm

tomcat wrote:
william wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The engine is the result of trying to get a takeoff distance < 1000 m while also achieving M .72 at FL400 with 36 tons payload. The speed basically requires a turbofan while the STOL and rough field capability very much prefer a turboprop. So you get a very large unducted fan, sort of. And the gearbox that is required for this has caused headaches to no end.


Interesting selling points for the A400M if it could achieve all of that. That explains the number of blades. Was it suppose to be fuel efficient too?


It's also worth remembering that hadn't it been any political intervention back in 2003 (yep, 17 years ago!!), Airbus would have chosen the PW180 engine which was admittedly more mature and cheaper than his European competitor. The TP400 engine and the lack of leadership in the consortium that has designed it has been a huge drag for the A400M program as a whole. The same could be said about the design of the A400M itself and its industrial and design work sharing.

Also, the fact that the A400M has been designed pretty much in parallel with the A380 hasn't helped the A400M case when it came to staff its design team at Airbus.

About the engine selection:
https://www.flightglobal.com/usa-blasts-a400m-engine-choice/48248.article


They do not use USA engines because of export restrictions.

SAAB got fooled When try to sell to Norway.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1310
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:02 am

tomcat wrote:


If the engine makers said in 2003, before all the unexpected troubles, that the engine "will probably not earn a great deal", I go back to my original hypothesis. The engines were a research project. Why would European engine makers not agree to a small loss, if potential useful technology gets developed/ in-house competence increases?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
CowAnon
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Mon May 04, 2020 6:36 pm

tomcat wrote:
william wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The engine is the result of trying to get a takeoff distance < 1000 m while also achieving M .72 at FL400 with 36 tons payload. The speed basically requires a turbofan while the STOL and rough field capability very much prefer a turboprop. So you get a very large unducted fan, sort of. And the gearbox that is required for this has caused headaches to no end.


Interesting selling points for the A400M if it could achieve all of that. That explains the number of blades. Was it suppose to be fuel efficient too?


It's also worth remembering that hadn't it been any political intervention back in 2003 (yep, 17 years ago!!), Airbus would have chosen the PW180 engine which was admittedly more mature and cheaper than his European competitor. The TP400 engine and the lack of leadership in the consortium that has designed it has been a huge drag for the A400M program as a whole. The same could be said about the design of the A400M itself and its industrial and design work sharing.

Also, the fact that the A400M has been designed pretty much in parallel with the A380 hasn't helped the A400M case when it came to staff its design team at Airbus.

About the engine selection:
https://www.flightglobal.com/usa-blasts-a400m-engine-choice/48248.article

Did Pratt & Whitney ever make the PW180's specs available to the public? The only information I can find about the PW180 is that it produced 16,000 shaft horsepower. That would make the PW180 nearly 50% more powerful that the TP400 and at a cheaper price.

https://www.flightglobal.com/tracing-th ... 87.article
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue May 05, 2020 2:43 am

william wrote:
And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?


If airbus does that will have problems when it inevitably ask for money for the European Union to save them from post-covid trouble. The A400 is an strategic program for most of the military in the EU today.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Tue May 05, 2020 11:50 pm

bkmbr wrote:
william wrote:
And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?


If airbus does that will have problems when it inevitably ask for money for the European Union to save them from post-covid trouble. The A400 is an strategic program for most of the military in the EU today.


Why do people talk about things they don't understand?

The EU budget is less than 1% of the GDP and the EU has very little military role. The EU is the single market which is a massive giant success, Euro (not so much) CAP, CFP, Schengen a bit of research spending and the Erasmus program. It's really not hard to find out what the EU actually does. Lots of things in Europe aren't related to the EU and that's fine. There is a reason for that.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 12:05 am

Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
william wrote:
And if the A400M is such a lead weight for Airbus, why not pull a A380 and pull the plug?


If airbus does that will have problems when it inevitably ask for money for the European Union to save them from post-covid trouble. The A400 is an strategic program for most of the military in the EU today.


Why do people talk about things they don't understand?

The EU budget is less than 1% of the GDP and the EU has very little military role. The EU is the single market which is a massive giant success, Euro (not so much) CAP, CFP, Schengen a bit of research spending and the Erasmus program. It's really not hard to find out what the EU actually does. Lots of things in Europe aren't related to the EU and that's fine. There is a reason for that.


Well, the EU know that they can't count with OTAN in the near future and with the whole “true European army" (as said by Macron) talks I believe that an independent European defense force is not that unlikely in the near future, and a EDF would need a cargo plane as the A400.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 1:59 am

CowAnon wrote:
Did Pratt & Whitney ever make the PW180's specs available to the public? The only information I can find about the PW180 is that it produced 16,000 shaft horsepower. That would make the PW180 nearly 50% more powerful that the TP400 and at a cheaper price.

https://www.flightglobal.com/tracing-th ... 87.article


Looking at Wiki 12,000 HP is mentioned. Fact is that PW180 specs might have been anything if development go-ahead had been decided.

In many ways PW180 would have been a PW1000G with a higher ratio gearbox to turn a propeller instead of a fan. The PW1000G had/have its own issues, like the TP400, and like practically all new engines since the Wright Brothers in 1903.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 12:38 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

If airbus does that will have problems when it inevitably ask for money for the European Union to save them from post-covid trouble. The A400 is an strategic program for most of the military in the EU today.


Why do people talk about things they don't understand?

The EU budget is less than 1% of the GDP and the EU has very little military role. The EU is the single market which is a massive giant success, Euro (not so much) CAP, CFP, Schengen a bit of research spending and the Erasmus program. It's really not hard to find out what the EU actually does. Lots of things in Europe aren't related to the EU and that's fine. There is a reason for that.


Well, the EU know that they can't count with OTAN in the near future and with the whole “true European army" (as said by Macron) talks I believe that an independent European defense force is not that unlikely in the near future, and a EDF would need a cargo plane as the A400.



You can believe what you want but that's just not going to happen. It's a great example of motivated reasoning. It's absolutely not a priority for the EU. The EU has a growing role in common procurement etc but it's never going to be a common European army. NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US. It's far more likely the US leaves NATO then the EU becomes a defense organization.

It's just incredibly ignorant of history to think the EU will take that role. Be asking for trouble and anti-EU problems. Those who want common European defense can do it through NATO, those that don't can just have the political and economic integration of the EU.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 3:47 pm

As long as Trump is president NATO cannot be trusted as a form of defense for Europe, anyone with common sense knows this. A European Army may be very unrealistic now, but some kind of a "European Defense Force" is not so unrealistic. The US won't leave NATO since it is politically interesting for the Americans to use the NATO structure as a way to conceal its military intentions worldwide, transforming an American intervention into an intervention by the consortium of countries that make up NATO
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10523
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 3:51 pm

Dmoney wrote:

You can believe what you want but that's just not going to happen. It's a great example of motivated reasoning. It's absolutely not a priority for the EU. The EU has a growing role in common procurement etc but it's never going to be a common European army. NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US. It's far more likely the US leaves NATO then the EU becomes a defense organization.

Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 4:01 pm

Polot wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

You can believe what you want but that's just not going to happen. It's a great example of motivated reasoning. It's absolutely not a priority for the EU. The EU has a growing role in common procurement etc but it's never going to be a common European army. NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US. It's far more likely the US leaves NATO then the EU becomes a defense organization.

Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?


Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10523
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 4:11 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Polot wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

You can believe what you want but that's just not going to happen. It's a great example of motivated reasoning. It's absolutely not a priority for the EU. The EU has a growing role in common procurement etc but it's never going to be a common European army. NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US. It's far more likely the US leaves NATO then the EU becomes a defense organization.

Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?


Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?

That’s not really my point. Dmoney was arguing that the EU was never going to have a common European army because “ NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US.”

I was pointing out that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively is a common European army and the EU would be the ones effectively leading it and making its decisions (or let it die, in which case Europe won’t have a main defense organization period).

Dmoney is acting like NATO is some UN organization and that the EU never has to be actively involved with it, and it will always be around as a main defense organization even if the US left.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 5:00 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Polot wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

You can believe what you want but that's just not going to happen. It's a great example of motivated reasoning. It's absolutely not a priority for the EU. The EU has a growing role in common procurement etc but it's never going to be a common European army. NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US. It's far more likely the US leaves NATO then the EU becomes a defense organization.

Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?


Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?


Kosovo?
Please don't tell me European NATO members forget about bloodshed in their own back yard that easily?
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Wed May 06, 2020 5:02 pm

The US would still want a presence in Europe, the governments are going to want to court said presence, and Europe would view the Non-US NATO as a further encroachment that isn't needed.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 12:21 am

Polot wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

You can believe what you want but that's just not going to happen. It's a great example of motivated reasoning. It's absolutely not a priority for the EU. The EU has a growing role in common procurement etc but it's never going to be a common European army. NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US. It's far more likely the US leaves NATO then the EU becomes a defense organization.

Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?



How can you not get this? Everything European is not the EU.

There could be a common European defense organization but it won't be the EU. For example, Ireland is a fully paid up member of the EU, not part of NATO and very wary of PESCO. There are other examples.

The EU and common defense are not the same thing.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 12:28 am

Polot wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Polot wrote:
Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?


Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?

That’s not really my point. Dmoney was arguing that the EU was never going to have a common European army because “ NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US.”

I was pointing out that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively is a common European army and the EU would be the ones effectively leading it and making its decisions (or let it die, in which case Europe won’t have a main defense organization period).

Dmoney is acting like NATO is some UN organization and that the EU never has to be actively involved with it, and it will always be around as a main defense organization even if the US left.



This is American ignorance. Not everything with a European dimension as a EU role. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden are all in the EU but not in Nato while Switzerland is basically in the EU but not in NATO.

These are all countries with long and complex histories and good reason not to be part of a common European defense organization. So you could get rid of NATO or have the US leave NATO and the EU will not have a common European army. Thats not the role of the EU and asking for trouble.

Plenty of those countries are enthusiastic members of the EU but categorically could not be part of an EU army. European common defense does happen (NATO) and could happen in the future but it won't happen through the EU.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 12:30 am

FlyHappy wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Polot wrote:
Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?


Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?


Kosovo?
Please don't tell me European NATO members forget about bloodshed in their own back yard that easily?


I'm not sure many Spanish or Irish or Swedish people consider Kosovo, OUR backyard. Complex conflict in a difficult part of the world, maybe tone down the rhetoric.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10523
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 12:39 am

Dmoney wrote:
Polot wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?

That’s not really my point. Dmoney was arguing that the EU was never going to have a common European army because “ NATO remains the main defense organization with or without the US.”

I was pointing out that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively is a common European army and the EU would be the ones effectively leading it and making its decisions (or let it die, in which case Europe won’t have a main defense organization period).

Dmoney is acting like NATO is some UN organization and that the EU never has to be actively involved with it, and it will always be around as a main defense organization even if the US left.



This is American ignorance. Not everything with a European dimension as a EU role. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden are all in the EU but not in Nato while Switzerland is basically in the EU but not in NATO.

These are all countries with long and complex histories and good reason not to be part of a common European defense organization. So you could get rid of NATO or have the US leave NATO and the EU will not have a common European army. Thats not the role of the EU and asking for trouble.

Plenty of those countries are enthusiastic members of the EU but categorically could not be part of an EU army. European common defense does happen (NATO) and could happen in the future but it won't happen through the EU.

None of that really matters. France, Spain, Germany, and Italy, for example, are all actively involved in NATO, all part of the EU, and all actively involved in the arms industry (whether that is through Airbus Military, Eurofighter, Dassault, or others). I don’t know why you think the A400M is not a strategically important program for the EU (to bring this back on topic). It is a very much a program designed to bolster the EU defense industry and be less reliant on foreign (re: American) metal. The EU would not be happy to see Airbus cut the program, especially considering the billions they have poured into it.

You are being way too literal with EU versus European. It really doesn’t matter. The point is European governments wouldn’t be happy if the A400M was cut. Whether they are part of the EU or not is really relevant. There very much is a European military industry, even if it is not the size of the US’s.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 12:56 am

Hang on you can't just say it doesn't matter. It's like saying the US and Canada are the same country. They are pretty similar but they are different countries in a whole load of ways.

The EU and NATO are different things. Facts matter. Has the EU put any money into the A400M? I don't follow the program closely but I don't think they have. Can you point to them doing so?

The A400m isnt a strategic program for the EU because it's not an EU program. It's not something the EU worries about and it's not the job of anyone in the EU to worry about. It's a real South Canada thing (or American if you insist) to think the EU has a much bigger role than it does. I don't interact with the EU in a Major way and national politics determines nearly everything which affects me.

The EU is NOT some superstate which makes big strategic decisions. It's largely a consensus based trade organization.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 1:42 am

EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) (linked to the EU's European Defence Agency) and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) are linked to the A400M in a way or another.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 1:47 am

Dmoney wrote:
The EU is NOT some superstate which makes big strategic decisions. It's largely a consensus based trade organization.


Really? So whats the reason to the European Defence Agency to exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 3:42 am

Dmoney wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?


Kosovo?
Please don't tell me European NATO members forget about bloodshed in their own back yard that easily?


I'm not sure many Spanish or Irish or Swedish people consider Kosovo, OUR backyard. Complex conflict in a difficult part of the world, maybe tone down the rhetoric.


Rhetoric?
Doh'key then. I guess Spaniards, Irish and Swedes feel no impact from wars in Syria, Libya and beyond, causing millions of refugees to stream into... I dunno, Europe?
To declare that Kosovo isn't Europes backyard... wow, just wow. Nevermind that Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia are all NATO member today.

Maybe the wealthier European countries could put a few more euros into A400m purchases and leverage its excellent range to address conflicts and humanitarian crisis not in its backyard.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 9:00 am

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
The EU is NOT some superstate which makes big strategic decisions. It's largely a consensus based trade organization.


Really? So whats the reason to the European Defence Agency to exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency



"to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”

Tell me if you think that's a European army. Doesn't sound like one to me.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 9:01 am

bkmbr wrote:
EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) (linked to the EU's European Defence Agency) and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) are linked to the A400M in a way or another.


Well I mean no they aren't and they aren't a European army either but Clearly you will believe whatever you want
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 9:12 am

FlyHappy wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

Kosovo?
Please don't tell me European NATO members forget about bloodshed in their own back yard that easily?


I'm not sure many Spanish or Irish or Swedish people consider Kosovo, OUR backyard. Complex conflict in a difficult part of the world, maybe tone down the rhetoric.


Rhetoric?
Doh'key then. I guess Spaniards, Irish and Swedes feel no impact from wars in Syria, Libya and beyond, causing millions of refugees to stream into... I dunno, Europe?
To declare that Kosovo isn't Europes backyard... wow, just wow. Nevermind that Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia are all NATO member today.

Maybe the wealthier European countries could put a few more euros into A400m purchases and leverage its excellent range to address conflicts and humanitarian crisis not in its backyard.



Yes please tone down your stupid rhetoric, thanks. No most people in say Spain or Ireland don't consider Kosovo our backyard. It's not my backyard. It's several thousand KM away. AS I said the Balkans are a complicated place, sometimes it's worth recognizing that, the limits to our knowledge and control.

Europe generally has a more measured interpretation nowadays of our ability to impose what we think is right on other countries. Treaty of Whestaphalia is pretty old at this stage. It would have been great if the US hasn't invaded Iraq and destabilised the middle East but that's done now. Trying to avoid you starting a war with Iran is the current goal.

P.s. Balkans has got better slowly. Croatia is an EU member now. Kosovo and Serbia are getting on better. Greece and North Macedonian are too. You make peace with your enemies not your friend's
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 9:26 am

Why don't you have your talk about European defense strategy in the non-avaition part of the forum???
 
marcelh
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 10:28 am

FlyHappy wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Polot wrote:
Uhh.. you realize that if the US leaves NATO then NATO effectively becomes a common European defense organization + Canada?

Who do you think will effectively be leading NATO if the US left, Albania?


Yes I know, but as Trump stated before that NATO is in fact an american organization with European members. NATO is nothing more than an excuse for Americans to allow military intervention in conflicts without appearing to be interfering. When was the last time NATO came remotely close to doing something that was not an strategically American interest?


Kosovo?
Please don't tell me European NATO members forget about bloodshed in their own back yard that easily?


Of course it was a strategically American interest. It was against the Serbs who were supported by Russia.
 
bkmbr
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:27 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 1:23 pm

Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
The EU is NOT some superstate which makes big strategic decisions. It's largely a consensus based trade organization.


Really? So whats the reason to the European Defence Agency to exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency



"to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”

Tell me if you think that's a European army. Doesn't sound like one to me.


No, this is not an European army the same way the NATO is not an worldwide army, but the European Defence Agency shows that the EU is much more than the "consensus based trade organization" you insist to say. The EU today is a much more complex entity than a simple trade agreement like it was 40/50 years ago. The simple existence of the European Defence Agency shows that. The Common Security and Defence Policy
already have multinational military forces established at Union level (like the Eurocorps) and the recent EU military operation in the Central African Republic shows that. The EU may not have a multinational army today, but the embryo for the existence of that army already exists within the organization.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Airbus announces € 1.36 billion net loss

Thu May 07, 2020 3:41 pm

bkmbr wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
bkmbr wrote:

Really? So whats the reason to the European Defence Agency to exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency



"to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”

Tell me if you think that's a European army. Doesn't sound like one to me.


No, this is not an European army the same way the NATO is not an worldwide army, but the European Defence Agency shows that the EU is much more than the "consensus based trade organization" you insist to say. The EU today is a much more complex entity than a simple trade agreement like it was 40/50 years ago. The simple existence of the European Defence Agency shows that. The Common Security and Defence Policy
already have multinational military forces established at Union level (like the Eurocorps) and the recent EU military operation in the Central African Republic shows that. The EU may not have a multinational army today, but the embryo for the existence of that army already exists within the organization.



We've gone from the A400m will be funded by the EU and the EU army. To the embryo of a European army.

Yeah there is an embryo but as I've explained it won't be through the EU. Otherwise what do you expel Finland and Ireland and Austria? The EU may develop some more defense elements but it'll be a 40 year process and it may not happen. It's likely NATO will remain the main body.

Who is online

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