User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11324
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:32 am

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am

Planeflyer wrote:
A real question; could The A400 been profitable if EU countries met their forecast?


No, as the engine problems alone delayed it too much. In the end it is something Airbus has hopefully learned. If you enter a commercial contract, the whole program needs to be managed in a commercial way, which means work shares are given to the best bidder and not based on the need to full fill certain quotas for certain countries.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
A real question; could The A400 been profitable if EU countries met their forecast?


No, as the engine problems alone delayed it too much. In the end it is something Airbus has hopefully learned. If you enter a commercial contract, the whole program needs to be managed in a commercial way, which means work shares are given to the best bidder and not based on the need to full fill certain quotas for certain countries.


baloney.

If you enter the political project domain ( and in an environment of a market participant that does not like competition )
defend against political sabotage. Most of the engine delays imho show an element of sabotaqe. ( same for the long time hidden by the Spanish project lead overweight issue.)

Few projects have seen so intense "countermeasures" brought up from "foreign but interested parties".
Murphy is an optimist
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:42 am

WIederling wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
A real question; could The A400 been profitable if EU countries met their forecast?


No, as the engine problems alone delayed it too much. In the end it is something Airbus has hopefully learned. If you enter a commercial contract, the whole program needs to be managed in a commercial way, which means work shares are given to the best bidder and not based on the need to full fill certain quotas for certain countries.


baloney.

If you enter the political project domain ( and in an environment of a market participant that does not like competition )
defend against political sabotage. Most of the engine delays imho show an element of sabotaqe. ( same for the long time hidden by the Spanish project lead overweight issue.)

Few projects have seen so intense "countermeasures" brought up from "foreign but interested parties".


Aaaah, the sabotage and conspiracy theories are being raised again :biggrin:

Who do you think are the guilty parties ? The U.S.A. in general? Lockheed Martin ? Boeing ? Northrop Grumman ? Dassault ? Pratt & Whitney ? Pratt & Whitney Canada ? G.E. ? Rolls Royce ? Russia ? China ? Or is it an inside job ?


Why is it so hard to accept that the development of the program has just been poorly executed and it's a drain on Airbus and all the project partners ? The aircraft will most likely in the end be in service for 40 years, do an excellent job for it's customers, but never make money for Airbus...shit happens.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3836
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:37 am

Looks like posters with time on their hands and nothing to add to years of similar posting will still be splitting hairs 40 years from now...
 
WIederling
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:44 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Aaaah, the sabotage and conspiracy theories are being raised again :biggrin:

That is a first approximation obviousness that comes with
"a nation invariably proud and boasting that they have stuck it
to some other party in an underhanded way or other."

boasting obviously limited to how it fits the current allegiances.
Murphy is an optimist
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:56 am

WIederling wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Aaaah, the sabotage and conspiracy theories are being raised again :biggrin:

That is a first approximation obviousness that comes with
"a nation invariably proud and boasting that they have stuck it
to some other party in an underhanded way or other."

boasting obviously limited to how it fits the current allegiances.


You continually come up with conspiracy theories, without any facts to back them up.

I have no interest in whether the program succeeds or fails, my interest is as an aviation enthusiast, simple as that. If I see one I'll try and get a photo of it, that's about the extent of it. Australia has made up its mind for our airforce and went with the C-130J and the C-17, with the 330 Multirole tankers when needed, so Australia has no need for them.


So if you have some basis of facts to back up your sabotage conspiracy, put them forward. Better still, take them to the police, federal authorities in your home country, I'm sure they would love to prove that some evil subvert, has undermined the next great tactical airlifter of the modern age :roll:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18202
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:58 am

Ozair wrote:
Noray wrote:
In the C-130J program -- it was run on a commercial basis before the A400M --, Lockheed and the Air Force surely were cleverer when they agreed to keep financial experts in the dark about the program's costs. Congress and Lockheed created a need for the C-130J, It was a commercial procurement failure, the performance was failing as well (headlines from the linked report). But it was American, so no problem.

Noray, you do realise the difference between the two programs don’t you?

The C-130J was developed, and sold, by LM commercially. The launch customer for the aircraft was the UK, which ordered more than two years previous to the US, while Australia ordered one year before the US and was the first to receive the -30 variant. So two international orders before the US even signed on.

While I believe some of the criticism of the IG report was justified some clearly wasn’t. If we consider the contractual delivery issues, as the Air Force noted they had no issue asking and LM fixing defects. The USAF also didn’t need to provide additional funding. Noting as well that the US Congress funded 30 additional aircraft above what the USAF asked for. In that context what else could the USAF do other than accept early build aircraft and push LM for fixes, which they did, and wait for USAF OT&E to identify if the fixes had been implemented.

Additionally, no one is claiming the C-130J entered into service with no issues. The RAAF clearly had troubles in 2001 with their OT&E as evidenced in a report by the ANAO,
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... 002_30.pdf

The C-130J took a number of years to reach sufficient maturity.

Contrast that to A400M development, where in 2007 Airbus Executives testified to British Parliamentarians as found in the following link. What Airbus executives said in response to questions, certainly with the assistance of hindsight and what we know today of the struggles the program had at that time, is borderline criminal. The Airbus testimony starts at EV28.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 62/462.pdf

IMHO, it was a flawed post.

The whole premise that A400M can't use the "all military programs have overruns" card because Airbus promised to develop it on commercial terms but failed to do so isn't negated by finding a second program that actually was developed on a commercial basis. The C130J example shows how LM did not ask for more money from the customer, quite unlike A400M. Yes, Airbus took the bulk of the financial hit, but it had a signed agreement to take 100% of the hit and it did not live up to that agreement.

If we want to play the conspiracy theory game, it's interesting how the A400M had "poison pill" provisions forcing Airbus to eat the overruns, but they claimed they could not afford to live up to the contract and then the "too big to fail" approach was used to force more money out of the taxpayers hands and into Airbus's. Along with actually getting more money from the taxpayers, they walked away from the kinds of penalties that they paid to A380 customers and that they should have paid to the taxpayers for their failure to execute the A400M program as promised. So how did a contract get constructed so the poison pill was so poisonous that it could never be put to use? Even after that, Airbus is now negotiating relaxation in functionality and delivery schedule with no compensation (apparently) being given to the customers. How is that daylight robbery happening?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
vr773
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:21 am

Air-to-air refueling capability well on its way: http://www.janes.com/article/81356/a400 ... refuelling
 
Ozair
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 am

vr773 wrote:
Air-to-air refueling capability well on its way: http://www.janes.com/article/81356/a400 ... refuelling

Good news. I haven't seen any recent news on RW refueling, any update on that?
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1015
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:05 am

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
Air-to-air refueling capability well on its way: http://www.janes.com/article/81356/a400 ... refuelling

Good news. I haven't seen any recent news on RW refueling, any update on that?


I suppose this would clear the F/A-18 in general? Or are there differences in the air-refueling system of the Spanish fighters?

With the Rafale also done, Eurofighter next? Or has it too already been done?

The article I shared on previous page said that Cobham is working on an updated pod.

"A future upgraded version of the underwing nacelle is expected to allow for refuelling of helicopters."

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... ls-rafale/

Mirage 2000 is scheduled for next year too.
 
Noray
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:35 am

Revelation wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Noray wrote:
In the C-130J program -- it was run on a commercial basis before the A400M --, Lockheed and the Air Force surely were cleverer when they agreed to keep financial experts in the dark about the program's costs. Congress and Lockheed created a need for the C-130J, It was a commercial procurement failure, the performance was failing as well (headlines from the linked report). But it was American, so no problem.

Noray, you do realise the difference between the two programs don’t you?

The C-130J was developed, and sold, by LM commercially. The launch customer for the aircraft was the UK, which ordered more than two years previous to the US, while Australia ordered one year before the US and was the first to receive the -30 variant. So two international orders before the US even signed on.

While I believe some of the criticism of the IG report was justified some clearly wasn’t. If we consider the contractual delivery issues, as the Air Force noted they had no issue asking and LM fixing defects. The USAF also didn’t need to provide additional funding. Noting as well that the US Congress funded 30 additional aircraft above what the USAF asked for. In that context what else could the USAF do other than accept early build aircraft and push LM for fixes, which they did, and wait for USAF OT&E to identify if the fixes had been implemented.

Additionally, no one is claiming the C-130J entered into service with no issues. The RAAF clearly had troubles in 2001 with their OT&E as evidenced in a report by the ANAO,
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... 002_30.pdf

The C-130J took a number of years to reach sufficient maturity.

Contrast that to A400M development, where in 2007 Airbus Executives testified to British Parliamentarians as found in the following link. What Airbus executives said in response to questions, certainly with the assistance of hindsight and what we know today of the struggles the program had at that time, is borderline criminal. The Airbus testimony starts at EV28.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 62/462.pdf

IMHO, it was a flawed post.

The whole premise that A400M can't use the "all military programs have overruns" card because Airbus promised to develop it on commercial terms but failed to do so isn't negated by finding a second program that actually was developed on a commercial basis. The C130J example shows how LM did not ask for more money from the customer, quite unlike A400M. Yes, Airbus took the bulk of the financial hit, but it had a signed agreement to take 100% of the hit and it did not live up to that agreement.

If we want to play the conspiracy theory game, it's interesting how the A400M had "poison pill" provisions forcing Airbus to eat the overruns, but they claimed they could not afford to live up to the contract and then the "too big to fail" approach was used to force more money out of the taxpayers hands and into Airbus's. Along with actually getting more money from the taxpayers, they walked away from the kinds of penalties that they paid to A380 customers and that they should have paid to the taxpayers for their failure to execute the A400M program as promised. So how did a contract get constructed so the poison pill was so poisonous that it could never be put to use? Even after that, Airbus is now negotiating relaxation in functionality and delivery schedule with no compensation (apparently) being given to the customers. How is that daylight robbery happening?


So, when you try to explain why it seems that you utterly despise the A400M (this is what the last postings were about), in the end it all boils down to economics? Seems a bit unfair to me to judge a complex project on that aspect alone. Especially if you know that this was a political project, intended to strengthen European independence and defence industry.

Above all, you ignore that the commercial approach was not just Airbus's idea, but a political requirement. In the 1990s, it was the latest attempt in trying to avoid the huge cost overruns previous projects had run into.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ayer-3751/
The FLA versus C-130J debate was to lead indirectly to then UK Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind, laying out the conditions under which the UK would rejoin the programme. Central to Rifkind's demands was that the FLA programme be placed under the auspices of Airbus Industrie, and that the project be run along commercial lines, to drive down costs.


It didn't work as intended with the C-130J, which was just a modernization of an existing airframe. The concept failed even more with A400M, which was a completely new design with new engines, created by a company that hardly had any experience in that specific field. But in the end, the politicians' idea to drive down costs for the public didn't fail completely, since Airbus has to carry the majority of the cost overruns.

Airbus wouldn't have received additional funds if the politicians didn't know that their meddling contributed to the cost overruns and delays.

We can agree that the commercial approach was somehow flawed, but then we still don't know anything about the aircraft itself, and that's no credible base for constant bashing of the aircraft.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:39 pm

Given now the known prices of existing military transport planes, their capibilities, and knowing how they are used and how often what are the particular niches that the A400 excels over other transports? And what would the sales people for others reply?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Noray
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:44 pm

The main "niche" is not a niche, but it's a general purpose military transport more performant than the C-130. It carries larger, heavier and better protected vehicles, it flies faster and higher and has longer range. It's much better at carrying X tons of cargo from point A to point B within a given timeframe. In addition, it also delivers more cargo into small airfields than smaller aircraft. Under certain circumstances, one A400M replaces not only two C-130s, but two differently sized types of aircraft that would be required otherwise. I should say it replaces three types of aircraft and more since it's also an aerial refueller and a MedEvac aircraft and a long range SAR aircraft (interesting for NZ).

On the downside some of the capabilities are still under development or won't develop as intendended, I guess we'll hear more about that during the coming Farnborough Airshow. And of course, if you can afford to operate four different aircraft for four different purposes, these can be better optimized for their individual purpose.

I think that the planned mix of transport aircraft in the RAF makes sense, where the A400M is the main backbone, but there also is a number of smaller and larger Aircraft for specific purposes.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:50 pm

I’m expecting this export to be Indonesia but is there anyone else that is a potential buyer this year?

Airbus Expects to Close First A400M Export Sale This Year

The president of Airbus Spain, Fernando Alonso, said today that six firm offers have been submitted to relaunch the sales of the A400M military transport aircraft, of which two are being negotiated and one may be concluded this year with an export contract.

Alonso, during a breakfast of Executive Forum, said that despite the problems that have arisen with this plane, mainly due to persistent difficulties which have led to a slowing down of deliveries and, therefore, lower production rates, is an "excellent aircraft "that" will have great commercial success."

He added that the problem of the A400M is that it was born "with unsustainable specifications," as the sum of the needs of different European armies made these specifications "incoherent." To date, Airbus has not yet sold any A400Ms for export, beyond the 174 aircraft ordered by the partner countries.

Alonso pointed out that it has been necessary to "unravel" this mess, and blamed the problem not only on the countries, but on the industry that was not able to be sufficiently critical of these mounting issues.

"We have managed to stabilize it from the industrial point of view," said the head of Airbus in Spain, who said that although there are "three or four things to finish," on the plane "almost everything works."

In the last two years, Airbus delivered 18 and 19 A400Ms, but this year the number of these aircraft of this model assembled in Seville will fall to 15 as previously planned, according to Alonso.

He considered that the program has now stabilized and that customers are happier, so "it is time to sell" to new customers. Six firm offers have been submitted to foreign countries, two of which are being negotiated and one of which could well be concluded this year. .


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -year.html
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1015
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:31 pm

I still think The SAAF is a good possibility. Might not be this year though. But they should be getting C235s / C295s this year. Maybe they can strike a good split package deal with A400Ms.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:48 am

Slug71 wrote:
I still think The SAAF is a good possibility. Might not be this year though. But they should be getting C235s / C295s this year. Maybe they can strike a good split package deal with A400Ms.

I just don’t see the funds available for that type of purchase by the SAAF given they already have problems maintaining and operating the aircraft they have today. This report from a couple of years ago http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?o ... sa-defence highlights the issues while the latest defence budget cuts the SAAF another 10.2% of funding from the previous financial year. http://www.janes.com/article/78216/sout ... nce-budget

The budget is expected to increase in 19/20 and 20/21 but an A400M acquisition would be a significant expenditure when the SADF has been and could continue to use commercial contractors for regional air transport requirements.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1015
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:46 am

I don't have a subscription to Aviation week, but it appears Malaysia just qualified 3 fighters for refueling. One seems to be the Hawk.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/mal ... -refueling

Seems like there's been a push to get the in-flight-refueling in service.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Legs and 7 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