User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


The A400M is expensive assett to use as a rescue vehicle, expensive as tactical transport, as a strategic transport and expensive used just as a tanker. The overwhelming saving / benefit is it can do all very well without needing expensive dedicated assets and their support infrastructures.

It opens up valuable capabilities for decades to come for its operators. Moving big loads at M.7 to grass strips close to the action is a great capability. Looking back concluding it isn't needed is deceptive. The capability simply didn't exist. So smaller transports / helicopters / trucks had to be used to pick it up from large airfields.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


eierlegende Wollmilchsau.

another application for a pricey asset.
reducing the price per app and potentially
making another low use single purpose item redundant. :-)


Afaics this is similar to single purpose tanker that is more than outdated long before its service life is used up
versus a multipurpose craft that gets enough hours to provide some budget efficiency.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:18 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

Puma IFV, sorry. The Wiesel is too small to carry extra soldiers. That was and is the plan during national defense, big mistake no. 3, where safety as absolute as possible as during low intensity conflicts is less important than getting shit done. Fighting right off the Ramp with Wiesels gets still practiced and demonstrated to the public, usually in the context of taking and holding an airfield. During ILA they like to demonstrate even quick entry/mission/retreat raid, air cover and all. As far as i know for Puma´s this has only been tried as proof of concept, but the Puma got modular armor just for that purpose, the full kit is too heavy. I´d expect to see that in training when enough of both are with the troops.

Russia also keeps an eye on that capability, they even intent to airdrop with troops inside, the 2S25 Sprut-SD pretty much only exists for that reason.

best regards
Thomas

Thanks for the clarification, I still don't believe the use case is valid or would be used in operational service as the surface to air threats in most scenarios is present and too high. If we look at the Puma IFV, the reporting indicates it would require four A400M to carry three Puma IFV and their full armour kits into a situation. Based on that, I'd suggest that the A400M may be weight constrained carrying the Puma IFV for a high threat scenario and the pairing isn't as ideal as it could have been.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.

In the UK context, when they don't have a viable long range maritime asset this makes sense and is a good use for the A400M, remembering that the UK has a decent fleet of C-17 and C-130 to fall back on. Once the P-8 arrives for the UK the A400M may not see a lot of use in this scenario but having the capability doesn't hurt.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 7196
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A400M Update

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:02 am

Ozair wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I still don't believe the use case is valid or would be used in operational service as the surface to air threats in most scenarios is present and too high.


It was and is deemed possible to create a safe corridor for insertion and exfil. The nap of the earth flying requirement comes from that. No point coming in at 200 feet if their ain't an anti air thread....

if we look at the Puma IFV, the reporting indicates it would require four A400M to carry three Puma IFV and their full armour kits into a situation.


Key being "full armour kits". Basic armour level A is already better protected than most IFVs, pretty much all aside of some heavy israeli APCs, level C only tops that up. There was also a level B for rail transport planned, but that turned out to be unnecessary, as C fits. The four A400M for three Pumas is for strategic air lift operations. Level A can be taken in and out unprepared fields, and tank and aircraft are designed for just that purpose. It is basically a weapon system, not an aircraft and a tank.

Based on that, I'd suggest that the A400M may be weight constrained carrying the Puma IFV for a high threat scenario and the pairing isn't as ideal as it could have been.


Whole point was and is that the enemy would have to expect and prepare for brigade sized air assaults with some highly mobile armored fire support, including anti-air, anywhere up to 300 miles in the rear, with almost no warning, requiring assets in place to deal with that.
They where supposed to be gone before the red army can bring enough air and ground forces to bear on them. And having them scramble in a hurry gives plenty of opportunity to riddle down those attackers and collect plenty of Intel along the way.
Trading a few airborn troops and tactical aircraft for binding a couple hundred tanks and a couple of 100.000 troops in the rear isn't all that unattractive during a real war. Basically guaranteeing costing the defender way more assets than the attacker can lose even in principle. It is also a good way to force the initiative for a while.

Strategic problem generally was that holding an advance would take a while, probably until the river Rheine. Not much in the way of bridge head missions for those troops until the tide has stopped. So one could have well trained and equipped paratroopers sitting on their butts for half the war, waste them on pretty normal infantry duties or send them on few, but risky, raids into the enemy rear.

The Soviet Union had similar plans, only did they expect their troops to hold until the front catched up with them, or exfil of only the troops with heavy equipment left behind destroyed. They intended to air drop tanks into the landing zone, fully armed and crewed. That would have been scary as sh*t I guess.

And compared to try and land a Herk in a soccer stadium and back out of it, it still sounds pretty peachy, don't you think?

Also the reason why C160's and CH53's where bought in rather large numbers by German standards, or 73 A400M originally. High losses where expected in their intended role.

Of course all of that is irrelevant to current conflicts, but not the conflict we have armed forces for. I am aware that use is pretty unique to Germany, just like having 50 ton APCs with just a heavy machine guns is unique to Israel or defending the air space above the battlefield mostly with fighters is very US.

Best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11055
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


What else have they got to do the job, it can’t be done from a P8.
 
angad84
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:46 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The UK also late last year concluded a series of flight trials to assess the A400M's ability to participate in maritime rescue operations. The activity involved deploying specialist rescue apparatus including container-housed inflatable life-rafts and survival equipment from the transport's rear cargo ramp by parachute.

Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


What else have they got to do the job, it can’t be done from a P8.

Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:21 pm

angad84 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


What else have they got to do the job, it can’t be done from a P8.

Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.



That would be like dropping small alms?
http://jaxairnews.jacksonville.com/mili ... -45-rescue
(better than nothing. obviously.)

The A400M SAR thingy talked about containerized ...
... you could drop a full lifeboat with engine from an A400M.
like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_lifeboat
:-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
angad84
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:19 pm

WIederling wrote:
angad84 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

What else have they got to do the job, it can’t be done from a P8.

Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.



That would be like dropping small alms?
http://jaxairnews.jacksonville.com/mili ... -45-rescue
(better than nothing. obviously.)

The A400M SAR thingy talked about containerized ...
... you could drop a full lifeboat with engine from an A400M.
like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_lifeboat
:-)

Yeah but it's not a night and day difference from a bog standard SAR kit that the P-8 *can* drop. The A400M boat might be a big containerised beastie, but if you're hundreds or thousands of km from shore, you're f***ed either way. Why bother training and equipped the A400M for something not much more useful than what the P-8 is designed to do right off the bat?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11055
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:04 pm

angad84 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Seems to me to be a very expensive asset to use just to chuck some life rafts out the back.


What else have they got to do the job, it can’t be done from a P8.

Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.


Dropping it from 500 ft is hardly ideal, it’s pretty much drop and hope for the best.

The kits are not the best option to rescue people at sea. “It is kind of a one-shot opportunity,” Snyder said. “We hope that for anyone in the water that there are more capable assets, like a Coast Guard ship or helicopter, but we can deploy them if need be.”
 
angad84
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: A400M Update

Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:44 pm

I haven't heard anything about the A400M kit that suggests it's proven or more capable. I know the P-8 kit is proven and has saved lives. I've seen the footage.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:09 am

Kiwirob wrote:
angad84 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

What else have they got to do the job, it can’t be done from a P8.

Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.


Dropping it from 500 ft is hardly ideal, it’s pretty much drop and hope for the best.

The kits are not the best option to rescue people at sea. “It is kind of a one-shot opportunity,” Snyder said. “We hope that for anyone in the water that there are more capable assets, like a Coast Guard ship or helicopter, but we can deploy them if need be.”

The P-3's had a SKAD (Survival Kit Air Drop) which drops an inflatable raft, basic supplies, and survival equipment which allows survivors to get out of the water.

If you need something bigger, there is also the MCADS, which is C-130 compatible.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:47 pm

NATO buyers to meet with Airbus over billions in A400M fines

Airbus will meet with several NATO members on Feb. 5 in London to discuss reductions to fines imposed on the company due to delivery delays and failing to meet contract capability requirements for its A400M Atlas military transport aircraft program, Reuters reports.

If Airbus is unable to convince buyer countries to put a cap on financial penalties, the company fears the $21 billion program will be seriously at risk.

Delivering aircraft that fail to meet contracted capability requirements behind schedule have lead buyers like Germany, the program’s largest customer, to withhold full payment. Technical problems in manufacturing, specifically with cracking in the engine’s gearbox, have put the project years behind schedule. As a result, Germany’s share of costs have risen from an expected $10 billion to nearly $12 billion.

Commenting on the program’s financial issues last February, Airbus CEO Tom Enders said the company committed an “original sin” by signing a contract that was “too short on budget and timeline.” Enders said the company made another “incredible blunder” in assuming liability for the engines.

Airbus paid $2.6 billion to cover financial penalties and slow deliveries in 2016, adding to the nearly $6.2 billion the company has paid in penalties since accepting the A400M contract in 2010.

Officials from Belgium, France, Germany Luxemborg, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, as well as Europe’s procurement agency OCCAR, will meet with Airbus in attempt to hash out an agreement capping financial penalties. Airbus received a $4.3 billion bailout from the seven countries in 2010.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01 ... 00m-fines/
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:25 pm

Ozair wrote:
Airbus paid $2.6 billion to cover financial penalties and slow deliveries in 2016, adding to the nearly $6.2 billion the company has paid in penalties since accepting the A400M contract in 2010.
...
Airbus received a $4.3 billion bailout from the seven countries in 2010.

Not sure why OCCAR would be motivated to give Airbus another break. Airbus is a giant corporation with giant profits and should be able to meet its commitments. Giving them another break reinforces a bad precedent. Enders is praised for gaining independence from the government and acting more like a corporation, but here he wants to get away with capitalizing profits and socializing debts.

However, we all know how this will turn out. He's been preparing the ground for months now. He will get much if not all of what he wants.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:57 pm

angad84 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
angad84 wrote:
Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.



That would be like dropping small alms?
http://jaxairnews.jacksonville.com/mili ... -45-rescue
(better than nothing. obviously.)

The A400M SAR thingy talked about containerized ...
... you could drop a full lifeboat with engine from an A400M.
like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_lifeboat
:-)

Yeah but it's not a night and day difference from a bog standard SAR kit that the P-8 *can* drop. The A400M boat might be a big containerised beastie, but if you're hundreds or thousands of km from shore, you're f***ed either way. Why bother training and equipped the A400M for something not much more useful than what the P-8 is designed to do right off the bat?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUfOfaC9uc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsKID0P3Wys
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:32 am

You know 10 years from now all these applications will be routine, the aircraft will be just another military cargo plane, and nobody will give a darn. But for now it's the new kid on the block and must measure up to everyone's fantasy real or not. Too bad we didn't call it "Dead Horse" instead of Water Buffalo, Bison, Grizzly or whatever because we seem to be endlessly beating it.
 
Noray
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:50 am

Hello, my first posting here.
Ozair wrote:
NATO buyers to meet with Airbus over billions in A400M fines

Airbus paid $2.6 billion to cover financial penalties and slow deliveries in 2016, adding to the nearly $6.2 billion the company has paid in penalties since accepting the A400M contract in 2010.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01 ... 00m-fines/

I'm not sure if defensenews are reporting this 100% correctly. Airbus took a charge (and another charge, and another one ...), which means they have written off a certain amount of money in their financial reportings to compensate for the risk of penalties, costs of additional research, retrofitting, withheld payments and so on, but they probably paid much less in penalties to their customers.

angad84 wrote:
I haven't heard anything about the A400M kit that suggests it's proven or more capable. I know the P-8 kit is proven and has saved lives. I've seen the footage.

I've found a video of the A400M air-sea rescue trials published by Defence Equipment & Support‏:
https://twitter.com/DefenceES/status/943798218684379137
According to the caption, they drop Air-Sea Rescue Apparatus (ASRA) from the ramp. It doesn't look like it's more capable than what other aircraft can do, it's probably the same proven method that has been in use for many years, and why shouldn't it be used with a new aircraft that has an infrared Enhanced Vision System and longer range than the C-130?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:55 am

In terms of rescuing people, it can take off, dash to target area at M.7, 2000-3500km out, go down to the target area, find the victims with IR, drop a suitable amount of equipment. Something neither the P8 or Hercules could do. It combines the speed & reach of a P8 and load/drop capability of a Herc. I can imagine the new capabilities matter when you're somewhere out on the North Atlantic.

- 58 A400M's have been delivered Jan 18th. .
- A malyaisan A400m will be at Singpore Airshow http://www.tradearabia.com/news/TTN_336060.html
- Apparently this old A400M (April 17) video went viral, it is now posted in many media channels. https://youtu.be/URSit14R9OE
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:20 am

keesje wrote:


With a chute you could drop these manned for rescue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXwLJmaHVik

Already build for high impact entry into the sea.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:56 am

Fly low & maybe without parachute, including crew..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9BvNnmDPTA

Although the forward speed might be an issue.. I won't be on board :bitelip:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:45 pm

Airbus is seeking to cap future penalties for late delivery / specs not met etc. Apparently this has cost billions of dollars so far, which Airbus attributes to commercially non-viable terms from the outset of the programme.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01 ... 00m-fines/
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:05 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Airbus is seeking to cap future penalties for late delivery / specs not met etc. Apparently this has cost billions of dollars so far, which Airbus attributes to commercially non-viable terms from the outset of the programme.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01 ... 00m-fines/

Article says:

If Airbus is unable to convince buyer countries to put a cap on financial penalties, the company fears the $21 billion program will be seriously at risk.

Why? Airbus signed a legally enforceable contract and has a strong balance sheet.

The only thing seriously at risk is Tom Enders's bonus.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Noray
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:14 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Airbus is seeking to cap future penalties for late delivery / specs not met etc. Apparently this has cost billions of dollars so far, which Airbus attributes to commercially non-viable terms from the outset of the programme.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01 ... 00m-fines/

See #567 above. This is no news, but a poorly rehashed story. Better read last year's Reuters report (February 22, 2017):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1610MD

The only news is that the talks Airbus had asked for a year ago will take place in a few days.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:54 pm

keesje wrote:
The A400M is expensive assett to use as a rescue vehicle, expensive as tactical transport, as a strategic transport and expensive used just as a tanker. The overwhelming saving / benefit is it can do all very well without needing expensive dedicated assets and their support infrastructures.

Reuters link just provided:

Noray wrote:
See #567 above. This is no news, but a poorly rehashed story. Better read last year's Reuters report (February 22, 2017):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1610MD

tells us the expensive asset has cost EUR 20M (original budget) + EUR 3.5B (customer bailout #1) + EUR 7B (Airbus writeoffs) so far, with Airbus coming back for more concessions presumably because the bleeding hasn't stopped yet. Hard to find that extensive savings, IMHO. Maybe the customers will tell us more about its cost effectiveness after bailout #2.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:52 pm

25 Billion is a lot for 180 aircraft, but not unheard off. E.g. The C-17 was a 70 billion program and I don’t know the numbers for the F-22 and B2. Europe is full of changing opposition parties that have a go at any defense program. The EC populations are far less patriotic, militairy focussed, proud and afraid than other nations, a few billion extra for our best man defending our values aren’t flagwaved away.

http://www.deagel.com/Support-Aircraft/C-17A-Globemaster-III_a000530001.aspx

https://www.govconwire.com/2016/10/deloitte-reports-468b-2015-cost-overrun-for-major-defense-acquisition-programs-robin-lineberger-comments/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:55 am

keesje wrote:
25 Billion is a lot for 180 aircraft, but not unheard off.

As far as I can tell we're at EUR 30.5B with 58 aircraft built and Airbus asking for more givebacks.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:01 am

keesje wrote:
25 Billion is a lot for 180 aircraft, but not unheard off. E.g. The C-17 was a 70 billion program and I don’t know the numbers for the F-22 and B2.
http://www.deagel.com/Support-Aircraft/C-17A-Globemaster-III_a000530001.aspx

Creative accounting again Keesje? How do you reconcile a US$170+ million each acquisition price for the A400M, before including dev costs, with 25 billion while you compare the total US program cost of the C-17, which includes dev costs, of US$70 billion? (aside from the fact of comparing to an aircraft that literally carries twice the payload essentially twice as far)

keesje wrote:
Europe is full of changing opposition parties that have a go at any defense program. The EC populations are far less patriotic, militairy focussed, proud and afraid than other nations, a few billion extra for our best man defending our values aren’t flagwaved away.

I disagree completely. Rafale, Eurofighter, NH-90, A400M, Tiger and others were and are all over their initial budget, and often revised budget projections. All have been “flagwaved” through in the name of domestic industry and production.
 
Noray
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:58 am

Ozair wrote:
How do you reconcile a US$170+ million each acquisition price for the A400M, before including dev costs, with 25 billion while you compare the total US program cost of the C-17, which includes dev costs, of US$70 billion?


The A400M price does include the anticipated development costs ("commercial approach").
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:41 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
25 Billion is a lot for 180 aircraft, but not unheard off.

As far as I can tell we're at EUR 30.5B with 58 aircraft built and Airbus asking for more givebacks.


You have to reduce the current outlay by the cost of unproduced airframes.
Now I don't have a good idea what an A400M frame incurs on its manufacturing path.
80m€ .... 100m€ ??

Next thing that can't be left out is "natural" cost escalation, aggravated from the "stretched" timeline.
Was the order for 20b 2004 Euros or for ... ? what do we know about inflation clauses?

A fair assay is avoided by all means. .-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:08 pm

Noray wrote:

The A400M price does include the anticipated development costs ("commercial approach").

No it does not.

Let's just remember that the cost of the program for France is € 8.9bn 2013, which places the unit cost of each aircraft for the French Air Force (excluding development) to € 152.4m 2013.

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-1 ... tml#toc174

The above figure are taken from the 2014 French Senate defence finance report for 2013. I used Google Translate to get the English text but the figure is very clear, and correct...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:22 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
25 Billion is a lot for 180 aircraft, but not unheard off.

As far as I can tell we're at EUR 30.5B with 58 aircraft built and Airbus asking for more givebacks.


You have to reduce the current outlay by the cost of unproduced airframes.
Now I don't have a good idea what an A400M frame incurs on its manufacturing path.
80m€ .... 100m€ ??

Next thing that can't be left out is "natural" cost escalation, aggravated from the "stretched" timeline.
Was the order for 20b 2004 Euros or for ... ? what do we know about inflation clauses?

Feel free to provide better information. The info I provided was as stated from the source link and from what I can tell the best and most current public statement on what is spent on the program.

WIederling wrote:
A fair assay is avoided by all means. .-)

Always up for a bit of slander, eh, WIederling?
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:39 pm

Cost escalations are relatively small compred to other big programs. Check e.g. the web for C-17 purchase / sustainability costs, total project cost/ number of aircraft, 1995 GAO report and you will turn away your head in disbelieve & prefer to look forward. The C-17 is great platform performing excellent service.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26.pdf
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:52 pm

keesje wrote:
Cost escalations are relatively small compred to other big programs. Check e.g. the web for C-17 purchase / sustainability costs, total project cost/ number of aircraft, 1995 GAO report and you will turn away your head in disbelieve & prefer to look forward. The C-17 is great platform performing excellent service.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26.pdf

Does one of Schopenhauer's 38 rules cover rationalization?
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Noray
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:34 pm

Ozair wrote:
Noray wrote:

The A400M price does include the anticipated development costs ("commercial approach").

No it does not.

Let's just remember that the cost of the program for France is € 8.9bn 2013, which places the unit cost of each aircraft for the French Air Force (excluding development) to € 152.4m 2013.

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-1 ... tml#toc174

The above figure are taken from the 2014 French Senate defence finance report for 2013. I used Google Translate to get the English text but the figure is very clear, and correct...

It does, and this has been basic knowledge for many years. You found a source where the cost is given without development, but that doesn't mean that the contract didn't include the development costs. And you didn't even read your source thoroughly. France ordered 50 A400Ms. € 8.9 billion (program price for France) divided by 50 is € 178 million, which is the unit cost including development. If € 152.4 million is the price without development, multiply that by 50 and you get 7.62 billion cost of the program for France excluding development. But the document states that the total cost is € 8.9 billion, which means that development is included in the price.

The good thing about this is that new customers won't have to pay for the development.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Cost escalations are relatively small compred to other big programs. Check e.g. the web for C-17 purchase / sustainability costs, total project cost/ number of aircraft, 1995 GAO report and you will turn away your head in disbelieve & prefer to look forward. The C-17 is great platform performing excellent service.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26.pdf

Does one of Schopenhauer's 38 rules cover rationalization?


In scope of the task set by and for OCCAR a comparison to other projects is fair game afaics.

task:
1. combine the various interest groups into a joint description that
will be handed off into a fixed scope and price contract.
2. Avoid escalation of project cost into multiples of the original budget.

How does the A400M project fare against "cost plus" projects or other "mil procurement".

You'll obivously not follow me there but I still think that a judicious part
of ( especially engine related) delays were sabotage. Inter EU or from external interests.
Massive overweight status _kept under wraps_ by the then Spanish project lead is
another item that I find strange.

Choosing an EU designed engine was a good thing (TM).
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Cost escalations are relatively small compred to other big programs. Check e.g. the web for C-17 purchase / sustainability costs, total project cost/ number of aircraft, 1995 GAO report and you will turn away your head in disbelieve & prefer to look forward. The C-17 is great platform performing excellent service.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26.pdf

Does one of Schopenhauer's 38 rules cover rationalization?


Probably !

But also a focus on an isolated detail (A400M cost) & try to generalize that, while ignoring the much higher costs of alternatives (e.g. dedicated asssetts).

On Schopenhauer's, it would be entertaining / educating for all to have those 38 stratagem's as easy to sue inserts here on a.net.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:44 pm

Ozair wrote:
aside from the fact of comparing to an aircraft that literally carries twice the payload essentially twice as far.


The statistic I like is the C-17 can carry an A400M payload farther than a A400M can fly fuel only, no payload.

Its just a weird size, and largely screwed by military vehicles getting larger and heavier with the experience in operating in the middle east. C-17 didn't suffer much being designed to haul 70 ton tanks which have largely been capped in weight by roads and bridges. Yet, even then its gone out of production.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:39 pm

Noray wrote:
It does, and this has been basic knowledge for many years. You found a source where the cost is given without development, but that doesn't mean that the contract didn't include the development costs. And you didn't even read your source thoroughly. France ordered 50 A400Ms. € 8.9 billion (program price for France) divided by 50 is € 178 million, which is the unit cost including development. If € 152.4 million is the price without development, multiply that by 50 and you get 7.62 billion cost of the program for France excluding development. But the document states that the total cost is € 8.9 billion, which means that development is included in the price.

Noray, I never quoted a price including development, I quoted a price excluding development, the same price you agree above is without development. Including deveopment costs in the total price is a false number as we don;t know how many aircrfat will be acquired until the program ends so adding a price per each aircraft manufactured is constantly changing. So when we take that price, € 152.4 million, and conduct a very conservative conversion to US$, we get US$170 million.

Keesje claimed that the A400M was a 25 billion program with 180 aircraft. Simple math shows that 180 x US$170 million is US$30.6 billion before development costs are included. Do I need to explain that any clearer?

As for your claim on development costs being included, there are always two numbers provided as is clear by the French Senate report. What you don’t see is the cost required by Airbus to develop the jet. If we include the US$6 billion the partner nations expected and factored into their budgets for the dev of the A400M, and using the figures I have already provided in this thread, we see a total development cost of the A400M of somewhere above US$20 billion and probably closer to US$25 billion. Within that number is the additional approx. $4 billion provided by the partner nations. Airbus has conducted some creative accounting so none of us will ever be able to tell how much was actually spent developing the jet but it is not what the partners, or Airbus, thought it was going to be.


keesje wrote:
Cost escalations are relatively small compared to other big programs. Check e.g. the web for C-17 purchase / sustainability costs, total project cost/ number of aircraft, 1995 GAO report and you will turn away your head in disbelieve & prefer to look forward. The C-17 is great platform performing excellent service.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-26.pdf

Keesje, you have already made that claim and I have proven that claim to be what it is, false in the context of development of the A400M. As already posted in this thread, the C-17 dev costs were approximately 7.6 billion to 1995, of which MDD paid US$1.6 billion. That over run, approx 170% of initial budget projections, is dwarfed by the A400M cost over runs above 300% of initial projections.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:07 pm

Ozair wrote:
As already posted in this thread, the C-17 dev costs were approximately 7.6 billion to 1995, of which MDD paid US$1.6 billion. That over run, approx 170% of initial budget projections, is dwarfed by the A400M cost over runs above 300% of initial projections.


300%? didn't you try this patently false info on us before?
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:51 pm

WIederling wrote:

300%? didn't you try this patently false info on us before?

No I didn't, I provided sourced numbers to support my case. I have yet to see a single credible and sourced assessment by anyone here that calls my numbers into question.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:01 pm

WIederling wrote:
In scope of the task set by and for OCCAR a comparison to other projects is fair game afaics.

task:
1. combine the various interest groups into a joint description that
will be handed off into a fixed scope and price contract.
2. Avoid escalation of project cost into multiples of the original budget.

I think 'by and for' is pretty ambiguous. If I recall earlier times correctly, it was Airbus that proposed the A400M be developed commercially i.e. "fixed scope and price contract". At the time I presumed they did this because at the time Airbus was a commercial entity separate from EADS (although perhaps under the same umbrella) and so they sold the idea that they could develop it commercially. Unfortunately Wikipedia and other sources reachable from google don't say one way or the other, but I think this commercial style development plan is why Enders refers to Airbus as committing an "original sin".

How does the A400M project fare against "cost plus" projects or other "mil procurement".

Not sure it's relevant, unless of course the goal is to get less screwed than other military programs as opposed to avoiding the screw job to begin with.

You'll obivously not follow me there but I still think that a judicious part
of ( especially engine related) delays were sabotage. Inter EU or from external interests.
Massive overweight status _kept under wraps_ by the then Spanish project lead is
another item that I find strange.

We can all pick our favorite "dark hand" scenario, can't we? If so I go with the whole A400M contract as being a giant poison pill. It had provisions for penalties for delays, but they were so draconian if the customers invoked them they would kill Airbus, and since at the time the customers were large Airbus shareholders, they wouldn't force their own child to take the poison. Either this was very clever or very devious. In either case, it's allowed Airbus to score one big bailout from the customers, and soon a second one too.

Choosing an EU designed engine was a good thing (TM).

Seems to be the root cause of the (ongoing) cost overruns. Not seeing other applications for it happening at this point in time. Seems from some points of view to be worth a lot of money to be free of US (Canadian?) technology, but others might feel it's not been worth the cost in time, money, reputation, etc.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:44 am

keesje wrote:
But also a focus on an isolated detail (A400M cost) & try to generalize that, while ignoring the much higher costs of alternatives (e.g. dedicated asssetts).

It would be a grand accounting exercise to analyze that, and as you know with any accounting exercise the accountants can reach pretty much any conclusion they want.

For instance, do you penalize A400M for not being as fast as supersonic transport, or not lifting as much?

Do you penalize A400M for not being able to do what a heavy lift helo can do at the forward edge of battle? Or a smaller fixed wing asset?

Yet if you don't, then you disadvantage what you could have had from 'dedicated assets' re-use approach relative to the 'jack of all trades, master of none' clean sheet approach taken by A400M.

How do you account for the fact that A400M's requirements pushed it into needing an all-new, expensive and troublesome turboprop engine whereas the 'dedicated assets' were able to heavily leverage commercial off-the-shelf engine technology? Huge negatives for cost, delays, etc and some nebulous positive for using home grown tech, I suppose.

In the end you'd start assigning positive cost to the things the A400M does well and negative cost to the things it doesn't/didn't and in the end the outcome can be whatever you want it to be based on how you assign the costs.

And of course Schopenhauer's stratagems would make a reappearance. Exaggerate/inflate the things you like, sandbag/ignore the ones you don't would be the rules of the game.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10647
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:22 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
But also a focus on an isolated detail (A400M cost) & try to generalize that, while ignoring the much higher costs of alternatives (e.g. dedicated asssetts).

It would be a grand accounting exercise to analyze that, and as you know with any accounting exercise the accountants can reach pretty much any conclusion they want.

For instance, do you penalize A400M for not being as fast as supersonic transport, or not lifting as much?

Do you penalize A400M for not being able to do what a heavy lift helo can do at the forward edge of battle? Or a smaller fixed wing asset?

Yet if you don't, then you disadvantage what you could have had from 'dedicated assets' re-use approach relative to the 'jack of all trades, master of none' clean sheet approach taken by A400M.

How do you account for the fact that A400M's requirements pushed it into needing an all-new, expensive and troublesome turboprop engine whereas the 'dedicated assets' were able to heavily leverage commercial off-the-shelf engine technology? Huge negatives for cost, delays, etc and some nebulous positive for using home grown tech, I suppose.

In the end you'd start assigning positive cost to the things the A400M does well and negative cost to the things it doesn't/didn't and in the end the outcome can be whatever you want it to be based on how you assign the costs.

And of course Schopenhauer's stratagems would make a reappearance. Exaggerate/inflate the things you like, sandbag/ignore the ones you don't would be the rules of the game.


Supersonic transport, helo?! I think we are in Stratagem #1 here :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 17206
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:13 am

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
But also a focus on an isolated detail (A400M cost) & try to generalize that, while ignoring the much higher costs of alternatives (e.g. dedicated asssetts).

It would be a grand accounting exercise to analyze that, and as you know with any accounting exercise the accountants can reach pretty much any conclusion they want.

For instance, do you penalize A400M for not being as fast as supersonic transport, or not lifting as much?

Do you penalize A400M for not being able to do what a heavy lift helo can do at the forward edge of battle? Or a smaller fixed wing asset?

Yet if you don't, then you disadvantage what you could have had from 'dedicated assets' re-use approach relative to the 'jack of all trades, master of none' clean sheet approach taken by A400M.

How do you account for the fact that A400M's requirements pushed it into needing an all-new, expensive and troublesome turboprop engine whereas the 'dedicated assets' were able to heavily leverage commercial off-the-shelf engine technology? Huge negatives for cost, delays, etc and some nebulous positive for using home grown tech, I suppose.

In the end you'd start assigning positive cost to the things the A400M does well and negative cost to the things it doesn't/didn't and in the end the outcome can be whatever you want it to be based on how you assign the costs.

And of course Schopenhauer's stratagems would make a reappearance. Exaggerate/inflate the things you like, sandbag/ignore the ones you don't would be the rules of the game.


Supersonic transport, helo?! I think we are in Stratagem #1 here :wink2:

LOL, yes, one of my brain farts ever! I won't bother trying to change it! :biggrin:
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
WIederling
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
WIederling wrote:

300%? didn't you try this patently false info on us before?

No I didn't, I provided sourced numbers to support my case. I have yet to see a single credible and sourced assessment by anyone here that calls my numbers into question.


IMU you sourced those via incomplete understanding of data available.
They still are wrong and cannot suffice for a viable argument.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: RAF A400M long-range air-sea rescue operations

Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:19 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
angad84 wrote:
Yes it can. The Indian Navy has a SAR kit that was used last year. I met the guys that did it earlier this week.


Dropping it from 500 ft is hardly ideal, it’s pretty much drop and hope for the best.

The kits are not the best option to rescue people at sea. “It is kind of a one-shot opportunity,” Snyder said. “We hope that for anyone in the water that there are more capable assets, like a Coast Guard ship or helicopter, but we can deploy them if need be.”

The P-3's had a SKAD (Survival Kit Air Drop) which drops an inflatable raft, basic supplies, and survival equipment which allows survivors to get out of the water.

If you need something bigger, there is also the MCADS, which is C-130 compatible.


Interestingly, the standard P-8A Poseidon lacks this capacity. There's been a debate amongst military circles in Norway about this, but apparantly the Norwegian P-8 Poseidons will be adapted to carry and drop these kits as well.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 7196
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
How do you account for the fact that A400M's requirements pushed it into needing an all-new, expensive and troublesome turboprop engine whereas the 'dedicated assets' were able to heavily leverage commercial off-the-shelf engine technology?


The A400M being a screw up aside, there neither was nor is there a COTS alternative to the requirements leading to it. Only the AN-70 could have grown into one.
The C17 can't go where the A400M is intended to go, the C130 can't cary forward what the A400M is intended to carry.

Best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.
 
Noray
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:02 pm

Ozair wrote:
Noray wrote:
It does, and this has been basic knowledge for many years. You found a source where the cost is given without development, but that doesn't mean that the contract didn't include the development costs. And you didn't even read your source thoroughly. France ordered 50 A400Ms. € 8.9 billion (program price for France) divided by 50 is € 178 million, which is the unit cost including development. If € 152.4 million is the price without development, multiply that by 50 and you get 7.62 billion cost of the program for France excluding development. But the document states that the total cost is € 8.9 billion, which means that development is included in the price.

Noray, I never quoted a price including development, I quoted a price excluding development, the same price you agree above is without development. Including deveopment costs in the total price is a false number as we don;t know how many aircrfat will be acquired until the program ends so adding a price per each aircraft manufactured is constantly changing. So when we take that price, € 152.4 million, and conduct a very conservative conversion to US$, we get US$170 million.

Although you may not be aware of it, you did quote a price including development: "€ 8.9bn" for France in 2013. The initial A400M deal was a fixed price contract that comprised development, delivery and initial support of a fixed number of aircraft. This also means that it hardly matters how many will be sold later. Of course we don't know what percentage of their real development costs Airbus charged their initial customers, but the development is included.

Ozair wrote:
Keesje claimed that the A400M was a 25 billion program with 180 aircraft. Simple math shows that 180 x US$170 million is US$30.6 billion before development costs are included. Do I need to explain that any clearer?

Wrong. That's with development costs and and after cost increases. The original contract was a 20 billion program, including development costs. There is an inflation clause as well, maybe that's the reason why some sources now say that it's a 21 billion program.

Ozair wrote:
As for your claim on development costs being included, there are always two numbers provided as is clear by the French Senate report. What you don’t see is the cost required by Airbus to develop the jet.

What you don't see is that we're talking about a fixed price contract.
If one number is "without development", guess what is the other number?
 
Ozair
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:13 pm

Noray wrote:
Although you may not be aware of it, you did quote a price including development: "€ 8.9bn" for France in 2013.

Again Noray, I quoted a price that did not include development. I agree that the € 8.9 billion referenced was an including development cost. As you explained when you indicated that price and I have used all along is a non dev cost.

Let me show you the math again…

8.9 billion divided by 50 equals € 178 million. Minus dev costs, as the source doc and you have clearly stated, is € 153 million. What price have I quoted? US$170 million but today that €153 million corresponds to US$191 million. When I currency convert I try to use a factor that represents closer to a ten year average or at the very least favours the original currency.

Noray wrote:
The initial A400M deal was a fixed price contract that comprised development, delivery and initial support of a fixed number of aircraft. This also means that it hardly matters how many will be sold later. Of course we don't know what percentage of their real development costs Airbus charged their initial customers, but the development is included.

I agree that the partners had a fixed price contract. But straight away you ignore the additional $4.5 billion provided by the partners to Airbus to cover development. That takes the initial $6 billion to $10.5 without including any of the additional costs Airbus has incurred. It doesn’t factor in the penalties Airbus has paid either but that is where the murkiness and creative accounting begins.

Noray wrote:
Wrong. That's with development costs and and after cost increases. The original contract was a 20 billion program, including development costs. There is an inflation clause as well, maybe that's the reason why some sources now say that it's a 21 billion program.


Prove it is? Show me how an aircraft that costs the French Government US$235 million each, inc development, can become a 25 billion dollar program when the dev costs are shared across the partners?

Given the total non dev cost is greater than that 25 billion sum I would appreciate the evidence.

Noray wrote:
What you don't see is that we're talking about a fixed price contract.
If one number is "without development", guess what is the other number?

Noray, I fully understand the fixed price nature of the contract but as with the C-17 where MDD had to pay US$1.6 billion dollars of their own money to fund and finish development, so to Airbus has had to fund huge sums, because of the very nature of that fixed price contract. Enders has stated this so many times it beggars believe that you are arguing against this.

Yes that means the partners may have only paid the initial sums, plus bail out money to Airbus for development but that is clearly not the total development cost of the aircraft. The total development cost will include the costs Airbus has paid from their own pocket, which we KNOW they have.

Finally and for full clarity, I don’t care about what the partners paid. I care about the total price to develop the aircraft which includes partner and Airbus costs.

WIederling wrote:
IMU you sourced those via incomplete understanding of data available.
They still are wrong and cannot suffice for a viable argument.

As I said then, please provide valid different numbers. You haven’t and my understanding of the costs, and how those costs are calculated, are valid.
 
Noray
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update

Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:00 am

Ozair wrote:
Let me show you the math again…

8.9 billion divided by 50 equals € 178 million. Minus dev costs, as the source doc and you have clearly stated, is € 153 million. What price have I quoted? US$170 million but today that €153 million corresponds to US$191 million. When I currency convert I try to use a factor that represents closer to a ten year average or at the very least favours the original currency.

Before you start holding lessons: Please stop mixing up $ and €, otherwise there's no chance at all that you come to a useful result.

Ozair wrote:
I agree that the partners had a fixed price contract. But straight away you ignore the additional $4.5 billion provided by the partners to Airbus to cover development. That takes the initial $6 billion to $10.5 without including any of the additional costs Airbus has incurred. It doesn’t factor in the penalties Airbus has paid either but that is where the murkiness and creative accounting begins.

Now that's creative accounting on your side. The sources say that there was a 3.5 billion euro bailout in 2010, and I don't ignore this at all. We don't know to which phase of the project this gets added internally by the different parties, so we must add it to the initial total of € 20 billion. The penalties that we've heard of are much lower than what you suggest. Germany requested only a total of € 40 million for the first 5 machines that were late and didn't fulfil the specs. That's less than 5 % of the total price, and this has been judged insufficient by critics.

What Airbus has to account for in their financial reports is not only the actual costs, but also the risks that arise from the program. A cost risk for Airbus can be a cost risk for the customers as well; in case of possible penalties it's unknown which side will bear the costs in the end. So all your math is futile.

We do know that there are sources that say the project is "now costing well over 30 billion euros."

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