User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:38 am

Welcome to the A400m Update Thread for 2019. Please add your comments below.

Link to previous thread

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1027711
Forum Moderator
 
Noray
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:00 pm

It's official now that, in addition to the 40 aircraft in Wunstorf, there will be a second A400M base in Germany. In 2025, a "multinational unit" will be based in Lechfeld near Augsburg, Bavaria.

It hasn't been announced yet what will be the other nations besides Germany. According to the first reports, there will be 10 German A400Ms in Lechfeld, which, given that Germany has ordered 53, would leave 2 or 3 aircraft for other partners (one could be used for tests).

A few days ago, a German MedEvac A400M evacuated a Hungarian Soldier from Afghanistan to Budapest. Maybe that's a hint towards a possible partner.
 
Noray
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:58 am

Noray wrote:
It hasn't been announced yet what will be the other nations besides Germany. According to the first reports, there will be 10 German A400Ms in Lechfeld, which, given that Germany has ordered 53, would leave 2 or 3 aircraft for other partners (one could be used for tests).

One source said that the Luftwaffe will get two test and one training aircraft (the latter possibly for training of ground crew?) and therefore only 10 A400Ms remain for Lechfeld altogether. Negotiations with possible international partners still seem to be going on and the recent announcement was supposed to reassure them.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12433
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:16 pm

The Luftwaffe got their 25th, halfway.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:28 pm

Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.
Possibly the other white tail, MSN75, or perhaps one that is still in assembly. Not sure if they might swap a delivery here: MSN75 to a customer and the would-be delivery to the test fleet instead. I can't find which batch they're currently at (should be 4 or 5; 6 starts at MSN106) but if there's an upcoming switch soon, that would be a welcome opportunity to get the latest version into the test fleet.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:02 am

mxaxai wrote:
Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.
Possibly the other white tail, MSN75, or perhaps one that is still in assembly. Not sure if they might swap a delivery here: MSN75 to a customer and the would-be delivery to the test fleet instead. I can't find which batch they're currently at (should be 4 or 5; 6 starts at MSN106) but if there's an upcoming switch soon, that would be a welcome opportunity to get the latest version into the test fleet.


Is there a reason the engines couldn't just be replaced on those frames?
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:12 am

Slug71 wrote:
Is there a reason the engines couldn't just be replaced on those frames?

Original test fleet (MSN 1/2/3/4) are very different to serial engines, to the point nacelles + pylon are different and can't be modified to acomodate serial...

The MSN4 grounding can very much be related to the time needed to produce specific spare.

I didn't noticed issue with MSN6, it was on heavy duty before Christmas break and had schedule maintenance planned for beg of this year. On top, even if they are fitted with some FTI, its engines are way closer to serial (If I recall correctly a serial engine was tested during the gearbox crisis).
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:05 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.


Your news may be true but contradicts mine :
- Not heard about MSN6 engine trouble. As it flew normally last week and is away for testing this week too I feel there's nothing significant ongoing.
- MSN56 temporary addition to the test fleet have nothing to do with issues on others frame. More to do with the need to test some latest features without having to ground MSN6 during weeks to upgrade it plus the ability to use it as demonstrator during airshows (thus freeing MSN6 for testing like they did last year during RIAT/Farnborough).

But it's true about the rumor of adding again another specimen to the test fleet in order to regain some time lost during the MSN4 grounding.
In such scenario MSNx would be paired with MSN6 to work on the buddy refueling while MSN4 would be focused on the helicopter refueling POD development. Unless Airbus decide to incorporate another aircraft for long term I personally feel that it would be a customer aircraft rather than MSN75. Finish the assembly and assign engines for a bird you'll ground as soon as you complete the mission would be cost prohibitive.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:08 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Recent news said that MSN4 & MSN6 (currently test fleet) have significant issues with their engines, which is why MSN56 was temporarily assigned to Airbus' test fleet and another later MSN will join her soon.


Your news may be true but contradicts mine :
- Not heard about MSN6 engine trouble. As it flew normally last week and is away for testing this week too I feel there's nothing significant ongoing.
- MSN56 temporary addition to the test fleet have nothing to do with issues on others frame. More to do with the need to test some latest features without having to ground MSN6 during weeks to upgrade it plus the ability to use it as demonstrator during airshows (thus freeing MSN6 for testing like they did last year during RIAT/Farnborough).

But it's true about the rumor of adding again another specimen to the test fleet in order to regain some time lost during the MSN4 grounding.
In such scenario MSNx would be paired with MSN6 to work on the buddy refueling while MSN4 would be focused on the helicopter refueling POD development. Unless Airbus decide to incorporate another aircraft for long term I personally feel that it would be a customer aircraft rather than MSN75. Finish the assembly and assign engines for a bird you'll ground as soon as you complete the mission would be cost prohibitive.

It is possible that something got lost in translation, e. g. someone originally said "MSN4 has engine troubles and MSNx will work with MSN6" and "MSN4 and MSN6 have engine troubles and MSNx will work for it" was received after going through a few people. Your source seems to have a more direct link.

I was informed that MSN86 (for Germany, still in FAL per https://www.abcdlist.nl/a400mf/a400mf.html) would join the test fleet but with the comment: "MSN75 is still without a customer so this move doesn't make any sense; someone might have gotten things mixed up." If it is indeed only for a very specific and limited test program, I agree that borrowing an already assigned aircraft for some time prior to delivery is easier.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12433
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:10 am

Hanging out in Wales.. https://youtu.be/RT7c4W7Lbto?t=176
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:47 am

keesje wrote:
Hanging out in Wales.. https://youtu.be/RT7c4W7Lbto?t=176


Really agile for such a big aircraft.

Does anyone know if the low level and and terrain-following capabilities have been certified now?
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:52 am

"Does anyone know if the low level and and terrain-following capabilities have been certified now?"

NO... It has not.
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12433
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:03 pm

mffoda wrote:
"Does anyone know if the low level and and terrain-following capabilities have been certified now?"

NO... It has not.


Maybe it was a good idea to delay this. It could have delayed getting the capability on online. Technology has made big steps in the last decade compared to the more conventional seventies-eighties terrain-following systems. The boost in navigation systems, automated 3D terrain modelling, realtime image processing and unmanned flight / UAV's changed everything. It could be that implementing a much better system has become easier and cheaper.

For reference, I remember in the late eighties cheap commercial GPS sticked to cockpit side windows made the huge P3C navigation installation instantly dinosaur in terms of accuracy and reliability. Let alone price & redundancy (bring 2).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:55 pm

Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator? I love the aircraft, but it seems a bit pretentious to retain the Airbus “A” for a military, espcially NATO focused aircraft
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Elshad
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:04 pm

Britain would probably call it something stupid like Atlas C1
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:36 pm

Reddevil556 wrote:
Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator? I love the aircraft, but it seems a bit pretentious to retain the Airbus “A” for a military, espcially NATO focused aircraft

Probably because nobody cares? It was conceived within the traditional Airbus naming scheme. Outside of designators given to equipment bought by the US, most users use their own names for their own fleets anyway, compare the A330mrtt with the designators "KC.2"/"KC.3" in the UK, KC-45 in the US, KC-30 in Australia and "Phénix" or simply "A330 mrtt" in France.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:39 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:
Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator? I love the aircraft, but it seems a bit pretentious to retain the Airbus “A” for a military, espcially NATO focused aircraft

Probably because nobody cares? It was conceived within the traditional Airbus naming scheme. Outside of designators given to equipment bought by the US, most users use their own names for their own fleets anyway, compare the A330mrtt with the designators "KC.2"/"KC.3" in the UK, KC-45 in the US, KC-30 in Australia and "Phénix" or simply "A330 mrtt" in France.


Makes sense, but was curious if any C "designators have been attached to it yet. Was the A400 a program launched by Airbus without any specific government putting out a design requirement?
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:19 am

Reddevil556 wrote:
Side note, why hasn’t the A400 received a NATO “C” designator?

Because it is not a NATO designator. It's an American designator.

Not only for US produced planes, but for all planes used by US military.

For instance the IAI Kfir fighter - an Israeli updated Mirage 5 - became F-21A when bought by the USAF.

The other way around, however - US produced planes used by other NATO countries - the planes normally keep the US designation. But not in Britain. For instance an E-3D in RAF is a Sentry AEW.1.

I know of only one example where a NATO country has renamed a non-US produced plane into US style naming. That was fifty years ago when Denmark got Swedish produced SAAB Draken A35XD, S35XD and Sk35XD, and renamed them F-35, RF-35 and TF-35 respectively. Half a dozen of the TF-35s were 25 years ago sold to the US National Test Pilot School, and soldiered on for another fifteen years, but then they were on the civil register - Nxxxxx, one example N166TP. They never got a proper US military designation.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:55 am

Transall C-160? I would agree that the C, F, A designations tend to be mostly US. But have seen some non US made that were also not US used receive similar naming. I maybe poorly assumed it was a NATO designation system since the letter system was used in the code word naming of Soviet aircraft.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Noray
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:25 am

Reddevil556 wrote:
Was the A400 a program launched by Airbus without any specific government putting out a design requirement?

No, it was designed to meet a catalogue of 1000+ requirements assembled by the militaries of several European nations in the mid-1990s under the designation "Future Large Aircraft". Airbus more or less asserted that, based on their experience with civilian airliners, it should be a piece of cake to create a military transport, and it was going to get a civil certification as well. So it made sense to keep the traditional naming scheme.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:00 pm

Noray wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:
Was the A400 a program launched by Airbus without any specific government putting out a design requirement?

No, it was designed to meet a catalogue of 1000+ requirements assembled by the militaries of several European nations in the mid-1990s under the designation "Future Large Aircraft". Airbus more or less asserted that, based on their experience with civilian airliners, it should be a piece of cake to create a military transport, and it was going to get a civil certification as well. So it made sense to keep the traditional naming scheme.


Thanks for the info! I left the Airborne about a year before they started seeing active parachute operations. We jumped with NATO units a lot so I always wanted chance to get the A400 on my log. Oh well haha
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:39 am

Reddevil556 wrote:
Transall C-160?

You tell us in your signature line that you have jumped from a C-212. Where does that C in the name come from? Well, all CASA designs during the last 75 years are named C- and a number. That includes for instance C-101 (a jet trainer) and C-223 (pretty much a Cessna 172 clone).

C-160? I don't know where that C comes from. But I think that the C-160 is the only French or German produced military transport, since the Wright Brothers, with such a C in its name. The number 160, however, is well known. It is the wing area in square meter. Originally there were multiple proposals with various runway- contra speed-/range- performance estimates, which of course pretty much was dictated by wing area. And in the end the 160 square meter wing was chosen as a compromise.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:25 pm

prebennorholm wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:
Transall C-160?

You tell us in your signature line that you have jumped from a C-212. Where does that C in the name come from? Well, all CASA designs during the last 75 years are named C- and a number. That includes for instance C-101 (a jet trainer) and C-223 (pretty much a Cessna 172 clone).

C-160? I don't know where that C comes from. But I think that the C-160 is the only French or German produced military transport, since the Wright Brothers, with such a C in its name. The number 160, however, is well known. It is the wing area in square meter. Originally there were multiple proposals with various runway- contra speed-/range- performance estimates, which of course pretty much was dictated by wing area. And in the end the 160 square meter wing was chosen as a compromise.


I will admit that the designation is not as uniform as I once thought, upon more research. Just with Kawasaki using C for its cargo planes, the various KC designators for the A330 MRTT I figured nations would attach a C designation to the A400. You do point out the overlap with CASA, that I did miss. More or less it seems it’s an individual nation thing more than a NATO thing. For example the Candians designation of the A310.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4192
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:34 am

Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.
mercure f-wtcc
 
Ozair
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:51 am

mercure1 wrote:
Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:35 pm

Ozair wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.


While the A400M is certainly also a big thorn in Airbus's side, I still think its design flaws are not as bad as the A380's. Far more addressable than the A380's. Now that the A380 is out of the way, hopefully they can actually tackle this beast and make a A400m2 out of it.
I think this had a little to do with killing off the A380 honestly. Maybe a lot. To address all the A380's flaws would pretty much require a clean sheet design, this not so much. The design flaws are comparatively much lower. The engines are making a lot of progress and Cobham is working on new pods.
I'm sure there are design improvements that can be made to supplement the pods and help the helo refueling, as well as the paratrooping from the side doors. And maybe some other tweaks. I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:42 am

Slug71 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Airbus today announced its taking another charge on the A400 program, this time EUR 436mil.

Enders also stated talks are ongoing with customers about restructuring the order terms, and hope to have things better clarified in coming months.

Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.


While the A400M is certainly also a big thorn in Airbus's side, I still think its design flaws are not as bad as the A380's. Far more addressable than the A380's. Now that the A380 is out of the way, hopefully they can actually tackle this beast and make a A400m2 out of it.
I think this had a little to do with killing off the A380 honestly. Maybe a lot. To address all the A380's flaws would pretty much require a clean sheet design, this not so much. The design flaws are comparatively much lower. The engines are making a lot of progress and Cobham is working on new pods.
I'm sure there are design improvements that can be made to supplement the pods and help the helo refueling, as well as the paratrooping from the side doors. And maybe some other tweaks. I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.

No one denies the capability of the aircraft but even Airbus is aware the market for the A400M is limited.

Airbus confident of A400M exports but says numbers may be modest

Airbus remains confident that it can secure export customers for its A400M airlifter, but has cautioned that sales are likely to be relatively modest given the aircraft’s cost and sophistication.

Speaking at the company’s annual press conference in Toulouse, CEO Tom Enders said that efforts continue to secure the first export customer for the type since Malaysia joined the programme in 2005, but that the aircraft’s superior capabilities and associated price-tag make it a challenging prospect compared to Airbus’ popular portfolio of smaller transport aircraft.

“Exporting the A400M is a very different game from the smaller transports built [at the same location] in Spain. The A400M is a product of the requirements of six [partner] nations who are very sophisticated, and you just don’t find those kind of customers around every corner,” Enders said on 14 February, adding, “I am optimistic that there will be exports, but it won’t be in the hundreds [of aircraft].”

To secure exports Airbus needs clear government support from the governments of France and the UK as the lead operators of the aircraft, Enders explained. “I believe we have a level of maturity now that makes it clear to potential export customers that we have an excellent aircraft with excellent supporting data,” he said.

Airbus has a 174-aircraft order book that comprises 53 for Germany, 50 for France, 27 for Spain, 22 for the UK, 10 for Turkey, eight for Belgium(including one to be operated on behalf of Luxembourg), and four for Malaysia. Of these, 72 have been delivered to date.

In March 2018 Indonesia confirmed its intention to procure two A400Ms, and the country is the Airbus’ strongest near-term prospect for a new export sale. Separately, South Korea is reported to be in talks with Spain to receive a number of its surplus aircraft.

https://www.janes.com/article/86382/air ... -be-modest

Given Spain is looking to sell their excess frames to a potential export customer there simply isn't enough of a market to warrant keeping the aircraft in production past its partner nation deliveries.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:15 pm

Slug71 wrote:
I think the bigger issue is weight and cost.

FIFY.

Ozair wrote:
No one denies the capability of the aircraft but even Airbus is aware the market for the A400M is limited.

Airbus confident of A400M exports but says numbers may be modest

Airbus remains confident that it can secure export customers for its A400M airlifter, but has cautioned that sales are likely to be relatively modest given the aircraft’s cost and sophistication.

Speaking at the company’s annual press conference in Toulouse, CEO Tom Enders said that efforts continue to secure the first export customer for the type since Malaysia joined the programme in 2005, but that the aircraft’s superior capabilities and associated price-tag make it a challenging prospect compared to Airbus’ popular portfolio of smaller transport aircraft.

“Exporting the A400M is a very different game from the smaller transports built [at the same location] in Spain. The A400M is a product of the requirements of six [partner] nations who are very sophisticated, and you just don’t find those kind of customers around every corner,” Enders said on 14 February, adding, “I am optimistic that there will be exports, but it won’t be in the hundreds [of aircraft].”

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Costly and sophisticated to the point where the market its limited to those with high budgets and high sophistication, but not as high as the US who would prefer to manufacture their own design.

Is China viewed as a potential customer, or don't they prefer to roll their own too?

It seemed for a long time that A380 was hoping China would come along and save it but eventually that hope was forlorn. Macron's gift of a horse and offer of a finishing line didn't sway the Chinese.

It seems the A400M may end up in the same place as A380, a product so costly and sophisticated it limited its own market appeal.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:27 pm

Ozair wrote:
Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

That won't be possible. At the very least, all orders from the partner nations will have to be delivered and they're not really in a rush to take them.

Ozair wrote:
Given Spain is looking to sell their excess frames to a potential export customer there simply isn't enough of a market to warrant keeping the aircraft in production past its partner nation deliveries.

There are still hundreds of old C-130, An-12 and Il-76 in operation around the globe. There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either). Potential operaters come from the middle east, north Africa, south & south-east Asia and also Europe. Remember that, currently, the A400M is the heaviest western transport in production, except for the niche C-2.
Most features will be delivered by 2021 and most remaining bugs will also be found and fixed by then. The A400M hasn't seen much service beyond basic logistic missions. Showing its capabilities in combat or in exercises may convince a few potential buyers.

Revelation wrote:
Is China viewed as a potential customer, or don't they prefer to roll their own too?

China has their own junk:

And I doubt that Airbus could get export approval except perhaps for the civilian version.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:51 am

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Enders should can both the A380 and the A400 before he leaves and give the next CEO a clean break from these programs.

That won't be possible. At the very least, all orders from the partner nations will have to be delivered and they're not really in a rush to take them.

Of course, I'm not saying cut production today and stop delivering aircraft but they could easily run the production down and deliver to existing orders. Once that is done finish the program and get it off the books given it is loss making and will remain loss making for its entire life.


mxaxai wrote:
There are still hundreds of old C-130, An-12 and Il-76 in operation around the globe. There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either). Potential operaters come from the middle east, north Africa, south & south-east Asia and also Europe. Remember that, currently, the A400M is the heaviest western transport in production, except for the niche C-2.

Wishful thinking at best. Even Enders doesn't expect those orders to come and given the competition in the market with the KC-390, C-130J, C-2, IL-476, Y-20 and a likely new medium Chinese transport there is little reason to acquire an A400M. As already established multiple times in the A400M threads there are so few nations that have the transport requirement set the A400M provides, clearly acknowledged again by Enders in the janes article above, so why buy that extra capability and all the costs that come associated with it.

mxaxai wrote:
Most features will be delivered by 2021 and most remaining bugs will also be found and fixed by then. The A400M hasn't seen much service beyond basic logistic missions. Showing its capabilities in combat or in exercises may convince a few potential buyers.

I don't understand this fascination with equipment being proved in combat, especially in the case of a medium transport. Any prospective buyer with a half decent procurement agency would have a very good idea of the operational and life cycle costs of the airframe without it ever having to see combat.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:07 am

Ozair wrote:
Of course, I'm not saying cut production today and stop delivering aircraft but they could easily run the production down and deliver to existing orders. Once that is done finish the program and get it off the books given it is loss making and will remain loss making for its entire life.

It is loss making because of the high development costs (still ongoing but will come to an end soon), ongoing reliability issues & retrofits and the inefficient production, which is a result of politics.
At 8 per year and a remaining backlog of exactly 100 aircraft, production can stretch until 2031 without any new orders.
Ozair wrote:
Wishful thinking at best. Even Enders doesn't expect those orders to come and given the competition in the market with the KC-390, C-130J, C-2, IL-476, Y-20 and a likely new medium Chinese transport there is little reason to acquire an A400M. As already established multiple times in the A400M threads there are so few nations that have the transport requirement set the A400M provides, clearly acknowledged again by Enders in the janes article above, so why buy that extra capability and all the costs that come associated with it.

Well, there are some countries that have more money than they can spend but not enough to build their own. Most of them may not feel comfortable buying from Russia or China. Circumstances can also change; a country that only needs the C-295 today may want something larger in 10 or 15 years. Thailand and the Ivory Coast, for example, recently ordered a C-295 each. Perhaps they'll come back for some A400M in a few years?
Ozair wrote:
I don't understand this fascination with equipment being proved in combat, especially in the case of a medium transport. Any prospective buyer with a half decent procurement agency would have a very good idea of the operational and life cycle costs of the airframe without it ever having to see combat.

Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:10 am

mxaxai wrote:
It is loss making because of the high development costs (still ongoing but will come to an end soon), ongoing reliability issues & retrofits and the inefficient production, which is a result of politics.

I don't think politics had much to do with Airbus being unable to deliver to requirements and schedule. Sure a very tight contract held them to the letter but frankly the taxpayers of the respective partner nations should be happy with that.

mxaxai wrote:
At 8 per year and a remaining backlog of exactly 100 aircraft, production can stretch until 2031 without any new orders.

How is that rate a good thing for the aircraft. It is nowhere near enough to manufacture efficiently. That lower rate also makes it less likely exports can be easily incorporated into the line and likely increases the opportunity to partners nations to sell their airframes, either used or directly off the line.

mxaxai wrote:
Well, there are some countries that have more money than they can spend but not enough to build their own. Most of them may not feel comfortable buying from Russia or China. Circumstances can also change; a country that only needs the C-295 today may want something larger in 10 or 15 years. Thailand and the Ivory Coast, for example, recently ordered a C-295 each. Perhaps they'll come back for some A400M in a few years?

Thailand and Ivory Coast... seriously?

mxaxai wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.

You don't need combat to verify that a product is good or bad, a good evaluation team can make that determination. For example, Flanker has essentially an insignificant combat record but people buy it. Brazil certainly didn't buy the Gripen E based on its stellar combat record.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:03 pm

Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
It is loss making because of the high development costs (still ongoing but will come to an end soon), ongoing reliability issues & retrofits and the inefficient production, which is a result of politics.

I don't think politics had much to do with Airbus being unable to deliver to requirements and schedule. Sure a very tight contract held them to the letter but frankly the taxpayers of the respective partner nations should be happy with that.

Perhaps I worded that poorly. The development fuck-up is 90% Airbus' fault. But the distributed, inefficient production is mostly the result of politics. I think you could easily reduce the production cost by 20% or more by streamlining the production, but the original partner countries won't allow that. Airbus internal politics, which are related to external pressure, also led to poor cooperation between the various development teams and subcontractors.
Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
At 8 per year and a remaining backlog of exactly 100 aircraft, production can stretch until 2031 without any new orders.

How is that rate a good thing for the aircraft. It is nowhere near enough to manufacture efficiently. That lower rate also makes it less likely exports can be easily incorporated into the line and likely increases the opportunity to partners nations to sell their airframes, either used or directly off the line.

Unless someone orders more than a dozen it should be fine. Germany and Spain will happily delay a few deliveries by a year or two.
Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Well, there are some countries that have more money than they can spend but not enough to build their own. Most of them may not feel comfortable buying from Russia or China. Circumstances can also change; a country that only needs the C-295 today may want something larger in 10 or 15 years. Thailand and the Ivory Coast, for example, recently ordered a C-295 each. Perhaps they'll come back for some A400M in a few years?

Thailand and Ivory Coast... seriously?
Yes. Seriously. Just because they're not first world countries doesn't mean that they're too poor to afford new military equipment.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8003
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:19 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Perhaps I worded that poorly. The development fuck-up is 90% Airbus' fault.
But the distributed, inefficient production is mostly the result of politics. I think you could easily reduce the production cost by 20% or more by streamlining the production, but the original partner countries won't allow that.


Airbus production method seen as inefficient is a very popular but IMHO wrong theory.

Initial A400M problems can be assigned to CASA, Spain fending of controlling from Airbus core
hiding the massively overweight status of the design.
Engine issues can be closely linked to Hispano Suiza, Spain and BAE, UK.

IMHO one could make a case for sabotage from US aligned coalition of the willing countries.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:35 pm

WIederling wrote:
IMHO one could make a case for sabotage from US aligned coalition of the willing countries.

And one could make the case that your unsubstantiated blaming of Europe's woes to the evil hand of the US is tiresome and against forum rules.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tjh8402
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:02 pm

Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.

You don't need combat to verify that a product is good or bad, a good evaluation team can make that determination. For example, Flanker has essentially an insignificant combat record but people buy it. Brazil certainly didn't buy the Gripen E based on its stellar combat record.


+1. Add the F-35 to that list. Isn’t Germany the only potential customer that plane has lost (for political reasons)? Otherwise, it’s always beaten “combat proven” aircraft in competitions despite its (till recently) lack of any actual trial by fire and only limited recent competition in exercises.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:17 am

Had the A400 used Pratt Canada's engine, they would have probably landed 20 orders from there and missed many years of costly delay. The program would be a lot healthier today too.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:53 pm

WIederling wrote:
Initial A400M problems can be assigned to CASA, Spain fending of controlling from Airbus core
hiding the massively overweight status of the design.

I think it's not fair to give CASA all the credit. But yes, relations between Airbus proper and CASA were poor until CASA was fully integrated into Airbus in 2009.

JayinKitsap wrote:
Had the A400 used Pratt Canada's engine, they would have probably landed 20 orders from there and missed many years of costly delay. The program would be a lot healthier today too.

Well, P&W's engine was the initially preferred one, citing 20% lower costs. But Pratt and Whitney in 2002 wasn't quite the same company as today. They had let Airbus down with the (IAE) Superfan. The PW4000 series was generally not the preferred option on A330 or 777. They botched the PW6000 on the A318. I think choosing PW back then would have led to problems too, albeit perhaps different ones.

In early 2004, Airbus expected a market of ~650 aircraft in the A400M's size range - including the C-130J - worldwide but excluding China, the USA and CIS countries. They expected to sell 200 A400M in total, although they did not specifiy whether that is 200 export sales or 200 overall (i. e. the original 180 plus 20 for export). I think the predicted market size was already higher than what we've seen so far.

tjh8402 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. Why do people love the F-16 or A-10? Because their stats are better than the F-35? Or because they've already seen it in action and know what it can do? No decisions are fully rational. Sometimes you need a little wow factor to get your point across.
Maybe "combat" is a bit over the top. Just general training, support missions, humanitarian aid, excercises, etc. It reduces the risk of a potential buyer that the product he ordered is different from the one he gets.

You don't need combat to verify that a product is good or bad, a good evaluation team can make that determination. For example, Flanker has essentially an insignificant combat record but people buy it. Brazil certainly didn't buy the Gripen E based on its stellar combat record.


+1. Add the F-35 to that list. Isn’t Germany the only potential customer that plane has lost (for political reasons)? Otherwise, it’s always beaten “combat proven” aircraft in competitions despite its (till recently) lack of any actual trial by fire and only limited recent competition in exercises.

Well, if you look at https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/c130.html, Lockheed makes a major point of the C-130's experience. They wouldn't have to if its stats were outstanding. Experience and risk is a point any proper evaluation will take into account.
The C-130J isn’t a concept or in test phase. It isn’t a show horse. It’s a workhorse that’s in operation around the world, flying in every environment and mission scenario required every day and everywhere.

Proven. Ready. Unmatched.
 
Noray
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:55 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Had the A400 used Pratt Canada's engine, they would have probably landed 20 orders from there and missed many years of costly delay. The program would be a lot healthier today too.

Which engine? There didn't exist any off-the-shelf engine for the A400M. That's why EPI boast that the TP400 is the most powerful Western turboprop. Any new development would have been risky.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:16 am

mxaxai wrote:
There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either).


Define "Like hotcakes" because according to the VP here we have over 80 on the books.
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:46 pm

Noray wrote:
Which engine? There didn't exist any off-the-shelf engine for the A400M. That's why EPI boast that the TP400 is the most powerful Western turboprop. Any new development would have been risky.

Indeed, but PW had submitted a proposal that we're told Airbus was interested in pursuing yet politics drove them to the home grown solution, and we saw where that led. You can accept and allow for problems that came with the sheer scale of these engines such as the gearbox issues, but EPI did a lot of rookie mistakes like not using required practices while developing the FADEC software, and not checking for uninitialized data, that cost a lot of time and money and even unfortunately lives.

Oh well, in the end PWC was better off not getting the program. Sales have been a disappointment with even the launch nations trying to dump frames onto the secondary market and no follow on applications seem to be on the horizon. Like A380 has found, some times size is a problem.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:20 pm

426Shadow wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either).


Define "Like hotcakes" because according to the VP here we have over 80 on the books.

There still are 100 A400Ms on the books, and since we all know from this forum's experts that the A400M is a complete commercial failure, 80 can't be "like hotcakes".

Revelation wrote:
Indeed, but PW had submitted a proposal that we're told Airbus was interested in pursuing yet politics drove them to the home grown solution, and we saw where that led. You can accept and allow for problems that came with the sheer scale of these engines such as the gearbox issues, but EPI did a lot of rookie mistakes like not using required practices while developing the FADEC software, and not checking for uninitialized data, that cost a lot of time and money and even unfortunately lives.

Many of the past problems were not rookie mistakes and not caused by ignoring required practices, but come from the decision that those military engines should get a civilian certification. There obviously has been disagreement about this requirement and its consequences, and this could have happened to any partner.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:33 pm

Noray wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
There is hope that, eventually, those nations may want a replacement, and that that replacement is not by default the C-130J (which isn't selling like hot cakes either).

Define "Like hotcakes" because according to the VP here we have over 80 on the books.

There still are 100 A400Ms on the books, and since we all know from this forum's experts that the A400M is a complete commercial failure, 80 can't be "like hotcakes".

A400M is a complete commercial failure. See #24 above. Airbus has lost $billions, continues to do so, and is asking for another round of give backs by the customers. If A400M was charging what it was actually costing to produce and return a profit they would be no hope of selling them at all. Meanwhile LM makes money on every C130J sold. 80 profitable C130Js trumps 100 loss making A400Ms any day.

The core problem is Airbus over-invested for what the market could bear. Enders himself says that above. Sure, there's lots of nations that in theory would like something like A400M, but when you consider the nations that have the required wealth and the required sophistication to operate them the market shrinks tremendously.

And there's no easy way out. To cut unit costs, you need volume but how are you going to get the current customers to agree to cut cost when some of them are already trying to sell the frames they have on order? Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

We hear the hope that at some point in time the A400M will win by default, but that won't make the required wealth and sophistication appear spontaneously. The customers will simply accept a less sophisticated and costly solution or do without.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noray
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
Airbus has lost $billions, continues to do so, and is asking for another round of give backs by the customers.

They're not asking for another round. The negotiations are complete, the result is awaiting parliamentary approval.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8003
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
Airbus has lost $billions,


do we know anything about the expected profit margin in Airbus overall offer for the A400M project?
Who sells the engines ? Airbus or EPI ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
mxaxai
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:05 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.


Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 847
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:23 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Why would they agree to let new export customers pay less for frames then they are already paying? Therefore it's hard to see how this market could be stimulated.

Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.


Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?


Generally the risk sharing partners get a benefit from having a set percentage of construction contracts going to their countries. This is what's happening with the F-35 for example. So any sales on top of the base orders become profit for the countries that threw money into development. At the purchase end it's whatever a country can negotiate with the builder.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:25 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.


Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

It really depends on the export sale. The US FMS program requires that nations pay towards the non-recurring costs, both for development and for production, but nations are able to obtain a waiver for these costs. The waivers can be granted to NATO partners, Australia, Japan etc in instances were the acquisition advances US interest in standardisation. I’d expect every F-35 acquirer will not pay NC costs given the standardisation argument.

jupiter2 wrote:
As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?

Exactly. The argument was nonsensical and not only that but when FMS sales occur, which happened with Japan and South Korea, they pay the price the US pays for the aircraft in that year, plus admin fees above.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
[Generally the risk sharing partners get a benefit from having a set percentage of construction contracts going to their countries. This is what's happening with the F-35 for example. So any sales on top of the base orders become profit for the countries that threw money into development. At the purchase end it's whatever a country can negotiate with the builder.

The A400M context is slightly different though. In 2011 the deal for bailout cash included each of the partners paying an “export levy facility” to EADS. The intent was that EADS would pay this money back out of future export sales. So far no export sale has occurred since that date…

Let’s be clear though, there is no way that any export success would allow the program to break even. Airbus has taken approximately nine billion Euro in write offs on this program, not including the additional funding sums that the partner governments have provided. The acquisition price of the aircraft, even counting for inflation, is about twice what it was advertised.


Another article on the potential for the Spanish to seel a portion of their aircraft to South Korea and even then they want to shed 13 aircraft but South Korea is only interested in four to six.

Korea enters transport planes talks with Spain
South Korea has started talks with Spain about a potential sale of KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets in exchange for military transport aircraft Airbus A400M.
Korea’s officials said the Ministry of National Defense and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) have been reviewing Spain’s proposal to trade some of its A-400M transport planes, made by Airbus, for KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets produced by KAI.
Spain made the offer “through an unofficial route” in July 2018 at the Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom.
According to the Korea Times English-language newspapers, Spain has reportedly ordered 27 A-400Ms from Airbus. But has decided to sell 13 of them and received consent from Airbus.
It is reportedly hoping to deliver four to six A-400Ms to Korea in return for 30 KT-1s and 20 T-50s.
Also reported that if the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.
According to Airbus, the A400M is the most advanced, proven and certified airlifter available, combining 21st century state-of-the-art technologies to fulfill the current and upcoming Armed Forces’ needs. The A400M combines the capability to carry strategic loads with the ability to deliver even into tactical locations with small and unprepared airstrips. And in addition it acts as a frontline-tanker for other aircraft.

https://defence-blog.com/news/korea-ent ... spain.html
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1340
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: A400M Update Thread 2019

Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:00 am

Ozair wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Why don't the US care that other countries are receiving F-35s for far less than what they paid for their initial batches? Why does anyone care what somebody else is paying?
You sign a contract with somebody because you think it's the best offer you'll get. If it turns out it wasn't, well, you obviously misjudged the situation but it's not a reason to renegotiate the contract. You're still getting exactly what your contract specified.

Further, it is IMHO foolish to expect export customers to pay the same price as the developing countries. They receive no economic benefit from the development and production. It's not their fault that certain special capabilities became quite expensive to develop. They shouldn't have to share the burden of high development costs.
Expecting them to do so is a common problem of all European defence projects. The partner countries should just accept that it's their project and that they must be willing to pay for it. Export orders are bonus.


Export customers should be paying more for these aircraft, not less, unless they are a risk sharing partner. They haven't gone through the burden of the delays, the short falls in performance and the price of developing the aircraft and engines in the first place. If the program had any chance to make money, then the aircraft should be priced accordingly and if the export customers want the extra performance, they should be paying top dollar, not bargain prices where the original buyers are just desperately trying to get back some of their investment in the project.

It really depends on the export sale. The US FMS program requires that nations pay towards the non-recurring costs, both for development and for production, but nations are able to obtain a waiver for these costs. The waivers can be granted to NATO partners, Australia, Japan etc in instances were the acquisition advances US interest in standardisation. I’d expect every F-35 acquirer will not pay NC costs given the standardisation argument.

jupiter2 wrote:
As for the F-35, haven't all the initial customers been risk sharing partners in the project ? Also, doesn't the U.S receive their later F-35's at a much lower cost than the early ones ?

Exactly. The argument was nonsensical and not only that but when FMS sales occur, which happened with Japan and South Korea, they pay the price the US pays for the aircraft in that year, plus admin fees above.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
[Generally the risk sharing partners get a benefit from having a set percentage of construction contracts going to their countries. This is what's happening with the F-35 for example. So any sales on top of the base orders become profit for the countries that threw money into development. At the purchase end it's whatever a country can negotiate with the builder.

The A400M context is slightly different though. In 2011 the deal for bailout cash included each of the partners paying an “export levy facility” to EADS. The intent was that EADS would pay this money back out of future export sales. So far no export sale has occurred since that date…

Let’s be clear though, there is no way that any export success would allow the program to break even. Airbus has taken approximately nine billion Euro in write offs on this program, not including the additional funding sums that the partner governments have provided. The acquisition price of the aircraft, even counting for inflation, is about twice what it was advertised.


Another article on the potential for the Spanish to seel a portion of their aircraft to South Korea and even then they want to shed 13 aircraft but South Korea is only interested in four to six.

Korea enters transport planes talks with Spain
South Korea has started talks with Spain about a potential sale of KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets in exchange for military transport aircraft Airbus A400M.
Korea’s officials said the Ministry of National Defense and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) have been reviewing Spain’s proposal to trade some of its A-400M transport planes, made by Airbus, for KT-1 and T-50 trainer jets produced by KAI.
Spain made the offer “through an unofficial route” in July 2018 at the Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom.
According to the Korea Times English-language newspapers, Spain has reportedly ordered 27 A-400Ms from Airbus. But has decided to sell 13 of them and received consent from Airbus.
It is reportedly hoping to deliver four to six A-400Ms to Korea in return for 30 KT-1s and 20 T-50s.
Also reported that if the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.
According to Airbus, the A400M is the most advanced, proven and certified airlifter available, combining 21st century state-of-the-art technologies to fulfill the current and upcoming Armed Forces’ needs. The A400M combines the capability to carry strategic loads with the ability to deliver even into tactical locations with small and unprepared airstrips. And in addition it acts as a frontline-tanker for other aircraft.

https://defence-blog.com/news/korea-ent ... spain.html


do you have details on the timing of the 9 billion Euro write off?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 16 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