• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9979
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:05 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:
..Who else might be interested or have a requirement?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_C-130_Hercules_operators

Filter out the smaller ones.

Focus on all that have requirements for
- moving new gen armed vehicles
- are involved in international UN / relief missions
- operate regionally
- have medium helicopters to move around
- benefit from independent fast jet tanker availability
- special forces capability

It doesn't make much sense who has a requirements based on current fleets, because there hasn't been a similar performance tactical aircraft for some time.

Keeje given you were the one who claimed the requirement existed you are welcome to do the analysis...


Well there's a large replacement market (aircraft don't fly forever) & the 60 yr old C-130 has become small / is now in low rate production.
The C-17 out of production. How much analyses do you need, when there is no competition ? ;)

What will the US Marines, Koreans, Aussi's, Italians, Scandinavians, Israelis, India, Indonesia, South Africa buy in the next 10 years. C-130's ?

Image

https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/a400m ... w-zealand/
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/c- ... index.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rc-439409/
http://quwa.org/2017/03/31/indonesia-si ... -aircraft/

I think everybody knows. From a buyer standpoint, denying you need anything is the best negotiation strategy when there really is no alternative. Compared to "C-X" R&D done in the US the A400M is cheap in any respect.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:59 am

ThePointblank wrote:
The A400M, while capable, is pretty expensive, and reading up on the exact timelines the Kiwi's want their replacement aircraft, they want the first aircraft delivered by February 2020 with IOC February 2021 and FOC February 2024. The Kiwi's also indicated that the new capability solution has to be at no less than equivalent current capability so that may exclude the C295 as interim lift and the delivery date of February 2020 makes it difficult for the A400M because the earliest available production slots based upon confirmed orders are in 2022. Realistically, New Zealand would be looking at A400M delivery of around 2024, four years after the required delivery date, with another 2 more years at least to achieve IOC, let alone FOC. That's not acceptable to them.

I doubt the major partners of the A400M are willing to give up their production slots for later aircraft because most of the major partners need replacement aircraft yesterday.


No, Airbus can’t lose this kind of sale due to lack of availability. Believe me, if a customer comes and requires some frame quickly, as far as it doesn’t request a lot of fancy new capabilities Airbus will be able to answer positively without having to negotiate slots with current customers.

Look at this facts indicating there is already slot available in the line :
- not so long ago we had MSN56 stowed half finished, without flag on the tail indicating an aircraft without customer. See my post #266. (it have been reloaded in FAL a couple of weeks ago so you’ll know its future quite soon).
- ~3 weeks ago MSN75 rolled out from the assembly hangar to the test hangar, also without flag on the tail.
- MSN66 and 68 never seen the light of the day

IMO all of these are “available slots”, 66 and 68 dropped because no prospect but 56 and 75 must be produced with an idea in mind, hint from marketing department that they could sell an handful of frames if available soon enough would be a good reason.

I think there’s 2-3 slots like these each year, and Airbus will decide to build or not in case by case basis.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:41 am

keesje wrote:
Well there's a large replacement market (aircraft don't fly forever) & the 60 yr old C-130 has become small / is now in low rate production.
The C-17 out of production. How much analyses do you need, when there is no competition ? ;)

Not sure why you think there is no competition. As already indicated, there is the KC-390, C-2, IL-476, C-130J. As demonstrated by the article I posted earlier on the NZ potential for an A400M acquisition the requirement to move an armored vehicle or medium helicopter can be fulfilled by commercial contractors. It is far more economical for most nations to contract that work out than acquire and operate an A400M sized aircraft, especially when most flights are made to paved runways.

Additionally, the C-130J is currently running at a production rate of 24 airframes per year until 2020 and will likely see additional US orders into the mid 2020s.
keesje wrote:
What will the US Marines, Koreans, Aussi's, Italians, Scandinavians, Israelis, India, Indonesia, South Africa buy in the next 10 years. C-130's ?

Your list is pretty bleak.
- The US Marines have no need for the A400M. Anything bigger than C-130 is handled by AMC.
- Australia has the C-17, C-130J and C-27. When the time is right for the RAAF to replace the C-130J the C-130J is a good candidate. The A400M provides no additional capability for the RAAF that they cannot fulfill with a C-17/C-130/C-27 combination.
- Italians perhaps have a requirement when the current C-130 fleet requires replacement but again the C-130 is a good option. Italy also doesn't have a history of expeditionary operations.
- In the KC-390 thread we have some good support for either additional C-130s or KC-390s for most Scandinavian nations. The A400M is simply too big and none of them have a requirement to move weight the distances you have indicated.
- Israel has no need for the A400M, it is not exactly a large country...
- India has just purchased C -130 and C-17. They may have a requirement for more tactical lift but given their more pressing tactical fighter requirements I doubt there is sufficient funding available for additional transport aircraft but an A400M order is certainly possible.
- Indonesia has already clearly stated any A400M order would be for 5 or less airframes. They see no requirement for more. Indonesia also has an extensive sea based transport system that allows them to carry heavy vehicles for a lot less cost than large transport aircraft provide.
- South Africa can't afford to fly much of anything. They already cancelled their order and it would take a massive economic turn around or significant subsidies from Europe to make that order a reality.

So from your list above, you might get 30 airframes, add in perhaps 20 more for odds and ends, some of which may come second hand from Germany and you have an additional 3-5 years of production.
keesje wrote:
I think everybody knows. From a buyer standpoint, denying you need anything is the best negotiation strategy when there really is no alternative.

Sure...I think you need some economic reality to set in. l already indicated there is competition and militaries don't work the way most commercial companies do. They have to define a requirement and then appropriate sufficient funding from government to acquire the capability. Hence it is years of white papers and capability reviews before acquisition occurs, all of which is usually in the public record.
keesje wrote:
Compared to "C-X" R&D done in the US the A400M is cheap in any respect.

I don't think you want to argue on A400M program costs....
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9979
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:54 pm

Ozair wrote:
I don't think you want to argue on A400M program costs....


The A400M was billions over budget. Which was a big thing for a dozen changing opposition parties around the countries involved. Scoring points against the waste-full, industrial military complex that has never been popular in Europe. Cost had to be cut on healthcare, education, etc. so all of them loved to take a dig at the redundant, money hungry A400M. The press added suitable headers & here we are.

Things are changing. The world seems less save then 10 years ago & defense budgets are going up. The opposition parties (now partly in governments) sense the changing electoral drift and admit maybe defense has been cut too radical over the last 20 years..

If you want to see some real cost overruns / write -offs (not a few billion) you have to look for regions where the military are much more powerfull & overruns are covered by the flag. Where they chuckle on the funny Europeans fighting over a few billions. Enter search terms as "F22", JSF" or "C-17" " Osprey" with "price", "GOA" , "Overrun" in Google.

http://dau.dodlive.mil/files/2016/06/arj-78-article-3-table-1.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/getinvolved.pogo.org/images/content/pagebuilder/dod_budget_graph_6-01.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:22 am

keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I don't think you want to argue on A400M program costs....


The A400M was billions over budget. Which was a big thing for a dozen changing opposition parties around the countries involved. Scoring points against the waste-full, industrial military complex that has never been popular in Europe. Cost had to be cut on healthcare, education, etc. so all of them loved to take a dig at the redundant, money hungry A400M. The press added suitable headers & here we are.

Well we should put some actual numbers to the project instead of airy fairy hand waving.

Initial project was US$6 billion in dev costs for the A400. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a400m-cost-may-be-80-million-52035/
Cost overruns went up 11 billion Euro in 2009. http://www.ipma.world/assets/1st-IPMA-Megaprojects-SIG-Meeting-4th-Sep15-Croatia_A400M-and-A350_ICCPM_Henley.pdf
By 2017 the total dev cost of the program was US$25 billion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/airbus-flies-yet-trouble-a400m-military-plane/

So A400M ends up costing approximately 350% more in dev costs than originally expected.

keesje wrote:
Things are changing. The world seems less save then 10 years ago & defense budgets are going up. The opposition parties (now partly in governments) sense the changing electoral drift and admit maybe defense has been cut too radical over the last 20 years..

What does this have to do with A400M program costs? Are you trying to insinuate that more European nations will buy the A400M in the future because defence funding may be going up?


keesje wrote:
If you want to see some real cost overruns / write -offs (not a few billion) you have to look for regions where the military are much more powerfull & overruns are covered by the flag. Where they chuckle on the funny Europeans fighting over a few billions. Enter search terms as "F22", JSF" or "C-17" " Osprey" with "price", "GOA" , "Overrun" in Google.

Not sure what the Opsrey, F-35 and F-22 have to do with this discussion? If you want to include them then fair enough.
The C-17 had initial dev estimate of US$4.9 billion in the 80s and a final total of US$7.8 billion in 1995 but US$1.5 billion of that was paid by McDD. C-17 dev therefore cost approximately 160% of initial projections. http://www.gaonet.gov/assets/160/150222.pdf?bcsi_scan_5e8320feade9cba2=hgyNhoEjY39TPOmCzQcygVeTCdALAAAARheWEA==:1&bcsi_scan_f3c628fb27335eb8=g2Xzp98Tw0+EuYF1CGEbE3ioN84QAAAA4+s4FA==&bcsi_scan_filename=150222.pdf
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=YVM2pK5TyakC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=C-17+developmenr+costs&source=bl&ots=Kv8o3hN8rj&sig=Kx9voJoRNhc2877lC3hjL_L5ebU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix-bDRuaXVAhWBKpQKHRbAAI4Q6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=C-17%20developmenr%20costs&f=false

The F-35 is approximately 133% of initial projections for its dev & SDD phase so frankly no comparison. (I’ve sourced those numbers multiple times on the forum so not going to again give them here)
The F-22 was initially touted at US$11 billion for dev but rose to a total of US$32 billion so 300% of initial projections http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf
The Osprey is the stand out colossal acquisition failure with an increase of approx 1000% on initial dev projections but that shouldn’t be a surprise, it was and remains a unique capability.

keesje wrote:

Congratulations, you linked two graphs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand or reference any of the programs you accuse of being over budget in a more wasteful way than the A400M.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5996
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:33 am

Ozair wrote:
By 2017 the total dev cost of the program was US$25 billion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/airbus-flies-yet-trouble-a400m-military-plane/

So A400M ends up costing approximately 350% more in dev costs than originally expected.


which is irrelevant for exports, since R&D is sunk costs and each sale above production price helps recovering some of it.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:00 am

Ozair wrote:
...

wrong numbers from line one onwards?
1997/9:
$80m * 280 frames ~= $23.04 from that sum $6b were devel cost.
Estimated cost before every nation involved had their personal and "wichtig" requirements added
Today it is overall $25..28b ?

so you were eagerly mixing overall and devel only cost.

cost overrun from signing to today : 25..30% ?
In scope of US procurement ( C-17 ) history an absolute bargain. IMHO.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ozair
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:48 am

WIederling wrote:
Ozair wrote:
...

wrong numbers from line one onwards?
1997/9:
$80m * 280 frames ~= $23.04 from that sum $6b were devel cost.
Estimated cost before every nation involved had their personal and "wichtig" requirements added
Today it is overall $25..28b ?

so you were eagerly mixing overall and devel only cost.

cost overrun from signing to today : 25..30% ?
In scope of US procurement ( C-17 ) history an absolute bargain. IMHO.

So provide a source to prove that. The sources I provided are clear what the dev costs were then and what they are today.

Just to see how it went off the rails, lets look at a report from 2009.

The airlifter — the single biggest financial threat to the Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defense & Space — is years behind schedule and has already cost Airbus some €2.4 billion, or $3.4 billion, in write-downs since 2006.
...
But Airbus looks likely to have to foot the bill for the A400M’s further development, which analysts peg at roughly $2 billion a year
...
According to a February report to the French Senate, the A400M is €5 billion over budget, 3 to 4 years behind schedule, and 12 tons overweight; aerospace experts estimate it is also costing Airbus between €1 billion and €1.5 billion a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/business/global/12airbus.html?_r=1&ref=europe
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15648
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:09 pm

keesje wrote:
The A400M was billions over budget. Which was a big thing for a dozen changing opposition parties around the countries involved. Scoring points against the waste-full, industrial military complex that has never been popular in Europe.

Thing is, Airbus went into it crowing about how A400M would be built on a commercial basis and the governments went in crowing about how they had a contract that would force Airbus to take the hit on overruns. It was all bio solids. It was as much a fantasy as the snap-together Lego 787 that @WIederling brings up all the time. The difference that the taxpayers instead of the investors were the ones getting bent over, because the government wouldn't enforce the overrun provisions in the contract, because when push comes to shove, it is the governments that owned Airbus, more so then than now, but still, are substantially invested. Since @WIederling loves conspiracy theories, it should be no reach to suggest that it was understood that those overrun provisions were a poison pill that both sides understood could not be invoked. Let's see how willing he is to embrace a conspiracy theory that puts his home team in a bad light.

If we need more proof, the link given above (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ary-plane/) shows the hugely profitable Airbus still has its eyes on the public till:

Airbus executives have ordered bosses on the A400M to “to re-engage with customers to cap the remaining exposure” - hinting they could be looking for further concessions on the A400M from governments.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Slug71
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:40 pm

A few posters have missed the point that while the A400m can replace the C-130, it can also complement the C-130 and C-17 fleets.
Not everything is always meant to be pinned against each other.

3 big advantages the A400m has over the C-130, is that it can perform and receive refueling in flight. Only a few C-130s have the capability to be refuelled in flight. And not all C-130s can be tankers without conversion or ordering KC-130s.
The C-130s also do not have the Terrain Following and other low level flight capabilities that the A400m will have.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A400M Update

Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:19 pm

Slug71 wrote:

3 big advantages the A400m has over the C-130, is that it can perform and receive refueling in flight. Only a few C-130s have the capability to be refuelled in flight. And not all C-130s can be tankers without conversion or ordering KC-130s.
The C-130s also do not have the Terrain Following and other low level flight capabilities that the A400m will have.

1. Inflight refueling is an option on the C-130. Not every user has a need for it, or wants it. And the C-130 can be fitted with either probe and drogue, or boom receptacle refueling.
2. It's a fairly easy modification to the C-130 to turn them into tankers; add a internal fuel tank into the cargo bay and hook that up, and install a pair of refueling pods to the external tank spot.
3. Actually, they do; Elbit Systems has implemented an upgrade in the C-130H and early C-130J's to fit the Northrop Grumman AN/APN-241 radar, and a forward facing FLIR in the cockpit section, along with a host of avionics upgrades to add terrain following and a whole host of additional features. The C-130J also has the AN/APN-241 radar fitted as standard as well.

Also, the MC-130J's are being fitted with a similar system, the Silent Knight terrain-following/terrain-avoidance radar, which is a low probability of detection/interception radar system designed for SOF use, and is will be common across the entire SOCOM fixed wing and rotary wing fleet.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3960
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:54 am

Slug71 wrote:
A few posters have missed the point that while the A400m can replace the C-130, it can also complement the C-130 and C-17 fleets.
Not everything is always meant to be pinned against each other.

3 big advantages the A400m has over the C-130, is that it can perform and receive refueling in flight. Only a few C-130s have the capability to be refuelled in flight. And not all C-130s can be tankers without conversion or ordering KC-130s.
The C-130s also do not have the Terrain Following and other low level flight capabilities that the A400m will have.

The main advantage the A400m has is the ability to take APC fully ready to go (C-130J can just take some APC but in a very stripped down form and only over a short distance).
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:31 am

...devolving as usual into a US aircraft vs European aircraft thread.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5996
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:44 am

Zkpilot wrote:
The main advantage the A400m has is the ability to take APC fully ready to go (C-130J can just take some APC but in a very stripped down form and only over a short distance).


...and take it to a really shitty soft dirt airstrip.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Olddog
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:06 am

The fact that US members are so upset is the better proof that A400M was a nice idea :)
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1136
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:37 am

Olddog wrote:
The fact that US members are so upset is the better proof that A400M was a nice idea :)


Nice idea piss poorly executed and costing member nation tax payers more and more very year. Europeans seem to be just as bad as Americans in the, mine is better than yours department.

For most nations this aircraft will find it's best value in disaster relief rolls and it's capabilities will be wasted the majority of the rest of the time.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:22 am

Ozair wrote:
The sources I provided are clear what the dev costs were then and what they are today.


your sources are quite OK. your understanding of those sources less so.

Airbus made a package deal. so nobody outside Airbus has any real interest in devel cost.
Airbus, doing REAL BookKeeping(TM) writes off all cost associated with any project as they occur.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:51 am

SCAT15F wrote:
...devolving as usual into a US aircraft vs European aircraft thread.


Jep, pretty disgusting.

jupiter2 wrote:
Nice idea piss poorly executed and costing member nation tax payers more and more very year. Europeans seem to be just as bad as Americans in the, mine is better than yours department.For most nations this aircraft will find it's best value in disaster relief rolls and it's capabilities will be wasted the majority of the rest of the time.


Piss poorly executed like nearly all military programs where new technology and/or capability for a specific OEM is involved. And the constant change of desire by the buyers certainly doesn't help.
As apparently nobody does is better, and as not the whole world is stupid as so many think, maybe it's the best we can hope to achieve in execution success for such complicated programs.

Yes, certain Europeans are just as bad as Americans. In relative terms the amount of 'murica screaming is greater then the amount of VIVE LA FRANCE or whatelse.

And yes, with your last sentence you described the inherent nature of military equipment. It exists for a case sane people hope never materializes. While far from being pacifist, in my book thats a good thing.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Ozair
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:25 am

WIederling wrote:
your sources are quite OK. your understanding of those sources less so.

Airbus made a package deal. so nobody outside Airbus has any real interest in devel cost.
Airbus, doing REAL BookKeeping(TM) writes off all cost associated with any project as they occur.

The cost to develop the jet is just that, the cost. How Airbus chooses to account for those costs is entirely up to them and completely irrelevant to the false claim Keesje made.

SCAT15F wrote:
...devolving as usual into a US aircraft vs European aircraft thread.

The biggest threat to the A400M is likely to come from non US aircraft already mentioned on the previous page including the KC-390, C-2 and the IL-476, even the Y-9 is a possibility. The vast majority of military transports are C-130 sized or below but the C-130 is the yardstick Airbus keeps trying to grade the A400M against.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15648
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:52 am

SCAT15F wrote:
...devolving as usual into a US aircraft vs European aircraft thread.

Indeed. There are plenty of other threads to talk about the C-17, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter, etc.

Let's talk A400M!

Airbus's recent earnings call had lots of quotes from Enders et all on A400M.

FT ( https://www.ft.com/content/1708be18-729 ... f383b09ff9 ) says:

In the defence division, negotiations with government customers on the troublesome military contract, the A400M, were “very constructive”, he said. Airbus has been forced to absorb billions in extra costs on the joint European defence contract due to problems with its engine software, production issues, and more recently the power gearbox. The A400M remained “the big elephant in the room”, said Mr Enders, and he warned not to “expect a big solution in the coming months”. “We are considering an adjustment of production levels to absorb inventory,” he said.


Telegraph ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... uperjumbo/ ) reports:

The A400M military cargo plane - which the RAF is taking into service - continues to prove troublesome for Airbus, with the company taking a €70m charge on the programme.

Some customers have complained the A400M fails to meet specifications, resulting in rising costs for Airbus, which said it “continues with A400M development activities toward achieving the revised capability roadmap shared with the customer” though admitted “achievement of the contractual technical capabilities and associated costs remain highly challenging”.


Bloomberg ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -cut-again ) reports:

The company took a 70 million-euro hit against the A400M, adding to 7 billion euros of charges over the past decade, and said meeting agreed technical capabilities and managing associated expenses remains “highly challenging,” with build rates now under review.

Enders also revealed that cost assumptions factor in winning export deals beyond the project’s core nations, something the plane has done only once with a contract from Malaysia, though Indonesia has signed an outline order.


Lots to unpack there. Airbus taking an EUR 70M charge due to A400M. Talks ongoing with customers, presumably to get them to pay more and demand less, but the talks aren't expected to bear results soon. Delivering agreed capabilities and hitting agreed cost points highly challenging. Looking at production cuts due to building inventory. Cost projections presume export sales, which aren't materializing.

To me, it's clear the program is under a lot of stress.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 24185
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:55 pm

Note that the "absorb billions in extra costs" refers to the write offs of the past, not just 2017.

I'm surprised by the "adjustment of production levels to absorb inventory", what inventory are they building? They are still early in the production run and have plenty of aircraft to assemble.

Lots to unpack there. Airbus taking an EUR 70M charge due to A400M.


For a military project, that's a rather small charge compared to earlier write offs. What could this be?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:13 pm

The flight line can manage a limited number of aircraft and seems to struggle to work them at the needed pace, therefore you can see "finished" aircraft waiting their turn almost everywhere around the FAL. With the orderbook so quiet I think safe to assume Airbus prefers slowing down the assembly line a bit rather than invest to ramp up the flight line and delivery center.

I think I know what's the 70M are for but can't comment, if I'm right you'll know "quite soon" :mischievous:
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Slug71
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:36 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
The fact that US members are so upset is the better proof that A400M was a nice idea :)


Nice idea piss poorly executed and costing member nation tax payers more and more very year. Europeans seem to be just as bad as Americans in the, mine is better than yours department.

For most nations this aircraft will find it's best value in disaster relief rolls and it's capabilities will be wasted the majority of the rest of the time.


Which is mostly a result of politics, not so much Airbus. Those issues have for the most part been worked out and the permanent engine/gearbox fix should be coming soon. A lot of the missing capabilities are under going certification now too.
 
bigjku
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: A400M Update

Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:43 pm

I would object to the idea that anyone, at least any rational person, is upset because of where the plane is made. I just think and have thought for a very long time that it just missed the mark.

Long story short it's too expensive to be somewhat disposable and riskable and doesn't provide the capability that would justify its expense.

It can haul some vehicles. But not most modern IFV. It isn't hauling most self propelled guns. It's not hauling tanks.

It exist in an odd gray area. It's certainly better than a C-130 but it isn't quite a strategic airlift asset either. I am sure there are situations where having the ability to lift things a C-130 can't lift but an A400m can lift and you need to get it to where a C-17 can't go will be critical. But it seems a narrow business case.

For the record this isn't all the A400m's fault. Western hypersensitivity to casualties is leading to massively overbuilt vehicles for many circumstances.
 
Olddog
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:18 pm

You should consider where the EU armies are fighting. They don't need the same range and capabilities to haul the same tonnage than US army.

How much do you value the knowledge built in EU for future planes ?
 
bigjku
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: A400M Update

Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:13 pm

Olddog wrote:
You should consider where the EU armies are fighting. They don't need the same range and capabilities to haul the same tonnage than US army.

How much do you value the knowledge built in EU for future planes ?


Range isn't really the issue it's maximum capacity. When almost everyone is designing ever heavier IFV's it's an issue.

I mean it basically can move around bigger wheeled vehicles at this point right? Tracked vehicles weights are going up not down. I have granted there are benefits at the margins. But I have yet to see a compelling argument for what operationally it allows one to do.

For Europe fine, build it. If you aren't going to have proper heavy lift it's better than a pure C-130 force.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9979
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:55 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
The main advantage the A400m has is the ability to take APC fully ready to go (C-130J can just take some APC but in a very stripped down form and only over a short distance).


...and take it to a really shitty soft dirt airstrip.

best regards
Thomas


Indeed. Core capability is big vehicles, fast, far into bad terrain. While the C130 proved itself over decades worldwide, requirements outgrow it.

https://youtu.be/Qt8dXI0cCJk
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Slug71
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:56 pm

bigjku wrote:
It can haul some vehicles. But not most modern IFV. It isn't hauling most self propelled guns. It's not hauling tanks.


While tanks are a problem, I disagree about IFVs.
The Patria (and variants), Stryker, MRAPs, M2 Bradley, and new US Marines ACV should all be no problem for the A400m. The T-14 Armada tank may even be a possibility in the future.
 
Slug71
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update

Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:06 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
Slug71 wrote:

3 big advantages the A400m has over the C-130, is that it can perform and receive refueling in flight. Only a few C-130s have the capability to be refuelled in flight. And not all C-130s can be tankers without conversion or ordering KC-130s.
The C-130s also do not have the Terrain Following and other low level flight capabilities that the A400m will have.

1. Inflight refueling is an option on the C-130. Not every user has a need for it, or wants it. And the C-130 can be fitted with either probe and drogue, or boom receptacle refueling.
2. It's a fairly easy modification to the C-130 to turn them into tankers; add a internal fuel tank into the cargo bay and hook that up, and install a pair of refueling pods to the external tank spot.
3. Actually, they do; Elbit Systems has implemented an upgrade in the C-130H and early C-130J's to fit the Northrop Grumman AN/APN-241 radar, and a forward facing FLIR in the cockpit section, along with a host of avionics upgrades to add terrain following and a whole host of additional features. The C-130J also has the AN/APN-241 radar fitted as standaird as well.

Also, the MC-130J's are being fitted with a similar system, the Silent Knight terrain-following/terrain-avoidance radar, which is a low probability of detection/interception radar system designed for SOF use, and is will be common across the entire SOCOM fixed wing and rotary wing fleet.


I knew of the Silent Knight coming in, but indeed forgot about the AN/APN-241 fitted on the H and J models.

But yes, the KC-130s can perform aerial refueling as I already mentioned. Not all the C-130s are plumbed to do so though. So a bit of rework would be needed.
And only special mission aircraft in service with the USAF and RAF can receive fuel in the air.
My point was, that this is all standard equipment on the A400m.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WIederling and 3 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