View Full Version : Wot no A400M!
MyEdUrts
23rd Aug 2006, 16:04
La Tribune is carrying this story.
"PARIS — European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.'s new military transport plane is likely to be delayed by up to two years, French newspaper La Tribune reported Wednesday, citing unidentified suppliers to the A400M.
Suppliers to the A400M say the program's delay is a result of key contract awards being held up by infighting among European governments."
Looks like LXX sqn might get a reprieve. Keep on trucking boys and girls.
South Bound
23rd Aug 2006, 16:10
It will be interesting to read a more-informed article as I thought the key contracts had already been let some time ago. We shall see....
EADS reiterates A400M programme on schedule (http://www.ndtvprofit.com/homepage/news.asp?id=264597)
clicker
23rd Aug 2006, 18:02
EADS reiterates A400M programme on schedule (http://www.ndtvprofit.com/homepage/news.asp?id=264597)
Didn't they say that about the A380 as well?
You're right. Perhaps we should check and see how many different in flight entertainment systems the customers have ordered......
But i heard it carried more weight....strange really for a picture, which historically at least can't carry anything.
wz662
23rd Aug 2006, 19:57
Its not the entertainment systems delaying the A400M. Its the thing the aircraft should have been built around - the cargo floor! The French and Germans want it to be the same as that in the Transall. The Belgians just need it to carry beer and chocolate, so it has to accept supermarket trolleys. The Brits confused by having two different floors in their Hercules have decided that going back to the Beverley floor will do. As for the Turks its a case of 'if God wills it'. :ugh:
Its the thing the aircraft should have been built around - the cargo floor! The French and Germans want it to be the same as that in the Transall. The Belgians just need it to carry beer and chocolate, so it has to accept supermarket trolleys. The Brits confused by having two different floors in their Hercules have decided that going back to the Beverley floor will do. As for the Turks its a case of 'if God wills it' So this is all cobblers then? :ooh:
Airbus Military (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/handling.html)
indie cent
23rd Aug 2006, 21:39
I've just googled it. Check the performance figures here:
http://www.defence.com/prog5.aspx
Mach .72 cruise speed seems pretty impressive for a turboprop.:ooh:
AND @ 100 Tons, 3000' t/o strip; less than 2000' to land!!! Sidestick and HUD.
There seems to be a thinly veiled dig at the J about allowing civil air ops!;)
Sorry to be cynical, but I would almost put money on it not being ready to step into the K's shoes. :suspect:
Rather a lot of RTS' required I should venture. However, it would be great to be proven wrong - it looks like we may be needing it. Yesterday.
Regarding AT crews and inflight entertainment, I've heard some stories....
wz662
24th Aug 2006, 07:58
ORAC That's not cobblers, that's a pretty computer generated picture of what they would like to produce. What is eventually provided and how it wiil be used by the various nations is currently in doubt. :ugh:
Always_broken_in_wilts
24th Aug 2006, 08:21
Wilts calling Beags..........Wilts calling Beags.....come in Beags
What's happening sire, give us the real SP:ok:
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Cargo Hold System contract was awarded to Rheinmetall (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/07/rheinmetall-wins-a400m-cargo-hold-system/index.php) in July 2005 for the complete production run. So that cannot be the delay due to "key contract awards being held up"....
wz662
24th Aug 2006, 13:25
ORAC I'm beging to wonder if your paths may have crossed at meetings in Toulouse, Bremen, Hamburg, Madrid or even Abbey Wood. :)
LowObservable
24th Aug 2006, 13:34
EADS reiterates A400M programme on schedule (http://www.ndtvprofit.com/homepage/news.asp?id=264597)
Mandy Rice-Davies!!!!
Who knows, but Airbus/EADS is committing to another very large program (A350XWB) and the A400M is not a trivial project - indeed, these aircraft have a history of being challenging to do. The last military airlifter to sail through development on time and on budget was the C-141. The C-5 was a horror, the C-17 was much too expensive... and then there is the C-130J.
South Bound
24th Aug 2006, 13:37
All this speculation is quite understandable but so counter-productive. Last I was aware was that the aircraft would likely be roughly on time, but realising the full capability would take a while (just the same as for all new aircraft).
Of course this does cause the biggest problems for the RAF as they actually have a scooby-clue what they intend to do with it while some of the other nations intend to develop their use of the aircraft once they develop a foreign policy that sees them deploy anywhere....
BEagle
24th Aug 2006, 13:47
Hmmm,
This story sounds like a sulking frog miffed about some small component not being awarded to a French supplier - and trying to stir things.
FADEC prop and engine working well, first set of wings now being built at Filton, everyone at Sevilla and Madrid working busily away.....
Planned performance well in excess of any similar 4-e turboprop, certification will be to civil standards because that's the Airbus standard - all looks good to me.
Any delays would more likely be down to Toolooze maximising work on the A380 to the possible detriment of other programmes.....
You WILL like it, I'm sure:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/A400M.jpg
And it'll be a sweet-smelling cockpit as well!
Mandy Rice-Davies?
"Cor, Lord Astor, innit' such a little one!"
Washington_Irving
24th Aug 2006, 14:02
Meanwhile, Boeing are threatening to shut down the C17 production line:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-boeing19aug19,1,4592381.story
MarkD
24th Aug 2006, 17:54
W_I
I was just thinking whether the 6th C-17 would soon be back on. Apparently Boeing had already committed the existing production run which the CF/RAAF/RAF#5 is coming out of, perhaps a few white tails remain on the existing book?
Dan Winterland
25th Aug 2006, 04:23
The flight deck looks very similar to the Airbus ailiner products. Which means the most important piece of equipment will be........the table! Lots of space for pies.:D
Washington_Irving
25th Aug 2006, 05:51
W_I
I was just thinking whether the 6th C-17 would soon be back on. Apparently Boeing had already committed the existing production run which the CF/RAAF/RAF#5 is coming out of, perhaps a few white tails remain on the existing book?
Dunno, mate- but my immediate guess is that they're trying to scare Congress into appropriating funds to buy more and keep the line open. They're certainly needed, but with the current state of play in Mesopotamia, the USAF and USN are having their funding cut to the tune of $50bn to make room for other stuff and the USAF fighter mafia are pouring as much money as they think they can get away with into the cake and arse party that is the F22.