A400 at risk?

[newswatcher]

From today's DT - Germans may ground deal!:

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/21/wdeal21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/21/ixnewstop.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/21/wdeal21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/21/ixnewstop.html</A>

[bootscooter]

All great news for the RAF, IMHO. The C-17 seems to be the best thing since sliced bread (what was the best thing before sliced bread?). The A/C and the Sqn have surely proved themselves by now, so more of the same can only be a good thing, instead of us having to (no doubt) wait years before a brand new design has it's problems ironed out. (That, I promise, was NOT a snide dig at the 130J's, just so nobody misunderstands...).

[EESDL]

"A400M at risk". .what from?. .actually being made!!

[shipwreck]

Again, blinding evidence that militarily, our european "allies" are a waste of space.

[bootscooter]

Can anybody explain the advantages (apart from UK jobs-for-votes) of the A400 over the C-17?

[BEagle]

Or perhaps more realistically, the advantages of the A400M over the An-70 - which carries slightly more slightly further slightly quicker, has already been built and is about 60% of the anticipated cost of the A400M?

[EvilThom]

Have to say that I think the A400M will fall by the wayside and probably we'll end up buying C-17's to meet the demand for strategic transport. What about the tactical/specops/paradroping requirement? I'm stumped as to what could meet that requirement....

Thom

[propulike]

Not really a surprise though is it? Did anyone ever believe that the Germans would buy over 70 of these aircraft, instead of having made up the number in an attempt to increase their percentage of the job sharing?. .Nice demo of Europe fighting from common ground for a common goal though.

[bootscooter]

EvilThom,. .Surely the 25(?) C-130J's will take the Tac role in time, leaving the C-17's to do the Strat work. Of course, there is always the arguement that anything you can do in Albert, you can do in the Slapper/Bhudda. Apart from shaking the pax's fillings loose, of course... :) :) :)

[vascodegama]

Not sure I share the enthusiasm about C130J doing Tac stuff its been a bit of a disaster so far in what it has been allowed to do. As for A400 it's a pity the runway at Lye is too short to operate at max TO wt. I concur on the C17 but lets not tie ourselves up on such a limiting lease -we should have just bought them in the first place.

[ORAC]

Decision in the German courts on Tuesday:

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1783000/1783042.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1783000/1783042.stm</a>

[Tobbes_on_Tour]

I thought that the Germans had come up with the cash late last week -- and that it is under constitutional challenge from an odd coalition of conservatives and communists.

As for the A400M vs C-17 story, if the slow death of the A400M means that the RAF will purchase its existing C-17s and get some more, the sooner the better. For far too long the British military procurement budget has been a very poor substitute for an industrial policy -- if we're serious about the military let's buy the best equipment avaliable for the money available, especially as large real increases in budgets are pretty unlikely!

ToT

[Big Green Arrow]

It would appear that Herr Scharping hasn't/didn't ask the beancounters if he could spend several Billon DM on the lion's share of the A400M order...BRG is having to tighten her belt considerably at the mo..and this project will probably go! <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[Roc]

Spent a couple of days at Guantanamo Bay last week, and as much as this pains a C-141 pilot to say, the C-17's were pretty impressive. They took off and landed in seemingly half the runway length it took us...and unexpectectedly the USAF is not shy about throwing them into the fray irregardless of their high cost and value..Not a perfect plane by far, but earning a reputation..

[Ginger Beer]

If the AN 70 has a Flight Engineer, it gets my vote every time.

If BEag's sums are ok, why the hell can't one of the grown-ups make a clever decision for once?

[BEagle]

From Defence Systems Daily (who allow such articles to be e-mailed to colleagues):

&lt;&lt; The A400M saga continues to splutter its way forward. Germany was given a two month reprieve to find the necessary money last week, after Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping conceded that the vote in the Bundestag, to fund the final cost of 33of the 73 aircraft Germany had signed for out of the 2003 budget, was only a decision in principle and not binding on the next parliament. . .The Policy Group, representatives of the eight European countries participating in the A400M military transport aircraft, meeting in Paris on 31 January, the date by which Germany was to have committed itself to the full 73 aircraft, decided to extend the deadline for commitment to March 31. . .The first instalment of Euro 5.1 billion, from this year's budget, for 40 aircraft, still has to get through the necessary Bundestag procedural hurdles. Opposition parties, mindful of the latest EU censure over Germany's overall budget deficit, which is greater than that allowed for under euro-zone rules are likely to make that a rough passage. . .As each delay occurs the enthusiasm of some partners lessens. Italy has already pulled out of the project, and the UK, satisfied with the performance of its leased C-17s, and anxious to replace its ageing fleet of C-130s, could well follow suit, if the delays continue to push the in service date back beyond the 2008 marker. . .Germany has said it will buy 73 A400Ms, France 50, Spain 27, Britain 25, Turkey 10, Belgium seven, Portugal three and Luxembourg one. Airbus Military, a subsidiary of Airbus has said it will only build the aircraft if it gets firm orders for the financially viable figure of 180 aircraft, and only if the order follows commercial best practice, with regular stage payments. Germany has already said it would prefer to pay for the aircraft as they are delivered. &gt;&gt;

So it looks as though the Bristol Bureaucrat isn't dead just yet..........

[propulike]

vascodegama - sorry for the delay in replying to your post, but which bit of the C130J ops has been a disaster?

Oh, and the advertised performance of A400M (yeah yeah I know) means it could fit on Lyneham's runway, but probably not the dispersal.

Apart from that, you sound quite well informed.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

propulike.

Maybe vascodegama has a point. My understanding of the Tac trials is they were not outstanding due to software error's.

Add that to the other problems the A/C is throwing up, pax numbers limited - strip capability - and the fact that they are all now sat in wilts waiting for some costly repair work one does start to wonder if the queen's shilling was wisely invested.

Still it keeps me in beer and more importantly......... at home!! :)

[propulike]

A B i W,. .Oh blimey, I suppose I should never drink and surf. However, now I've bitten....

The TAC trials went very well as far as I can tell from the people on them, especially as they say the software was actually pretty good.

Strip capability – I don’t know yet, but same undercarriage, similar wing and better engines don’t bode badly!

Limited pax numbers - routinely yes, but passengers are only meant to carried on a Herc as a last resort (and quite bl@@dy rightly too).

All broken in the good Wiltshire? Like I was told, 'We're going to ground the fleet AND bring all the aircraft back to UK.' “They” thought better of it after talking to the engineers. (Or perhaps it was the cost of shipping charges that put them off!) There are still an awful lot on the dispersal though. Perhaps the crews should work harder...

As far as the aircraft goes, everything it’s allowed to do within the RtoS it does to a standard generally greater than the K. The RtoS is annoying in areas (crosswind limits especially), although the rocket scientists tell us it’s for the good of our health. As far as other snags go, I may start a ‘Heard about the J Model’ thread ‘cos rumour control throws up some that even the aircraft haven’t thought of!

Anyway, to change the subject completely, heard about the A400M . . . . .

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

propulike,. . sorry mate but it was not an attempted wind up. I have been on the mighty 6 propped beast for over a year now and it's as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. I would not go back to the classic today, tomorrow or the next day and it would take a f****ng big lottery win to get me off the "J"

my only concern is that it has so far not come up to scratch in a few fairly important dept's which makes me wonder if we got the best deal poss?

as regards the A400 I just hope the bean counters don't trim too many of the vitals out of as they have done with our electric jet.

apologies again.

[unclebuckhead]

The C130J Tac Workload Trials were an overwhelming sucess. The new 5.3 software proved to be excellent in the tactical environment and despite multiple injects during the missions every TOT was made within 10s (achieved comfortably with a 3 man crew).

[ORAC]

So, we should know in a few hours.. .. .The Times, London:. .. .March 13, 2002. .. .German Greens to block Airbus funding. .By Allan Hall in Berlin and Michael Evans, Defence Editor. . . . . .THE future of the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft has been thrown into doubt after German Green Party MPs threatened to veto funding for the project in a vote that takes place today. . .Plans for the aircraft, designed to be the workhorse of a European rapid reaction force, would almost certainly be shelved if Germany were not to participate. . .. .If Berlin cannot find the billions necessary to buy 73 of the aircraft, the project will be scrapped, potentially wiping out 40,000 jobs from Britain to Turkey. At present it has funding for 46 aircraft. . .. .Three Green MPs on the parliamentary budget committee responsible for finding the extra money published a five-page document on Monday saying why they could not approve the Airbus funding. Without their support on the committee today, the German Government does not have the majority necessary to get the project through parliament. . .. .Eight nations, including Britain and France, committed themselves to the A400M wide-bodied transport aircraft on December 18. . .. .Rudolf Scharping, the German Defence Minister, signed up for 73 of the 196 aircraft, promising to seek parliamentary approval no later than January 31. However, that approval, which the other nations had assumed was a formality, was put in doubt after the German Finance Ministry said that legal budgetary requirements for the purchase had not been fulfilled and would not be ready by the deadline. . .. .The deadline has been put back to March 31. If there is no go-ahead and no firm pledge by the deadline, the other signatories will be released from their commitment and the project could unravel. . .. .The Government had attempted an “order now, pay-later” solution, something that the Greens and opposition MPs say is both unacceptable and unconstitutional.

[ORAC]

Looks like the German MOD will have to reword/renegotiate their letter of intent for the additional A400Ms so that they suffer no penalty when, inevitably, they fail to purchase them - and all in 7 days as well! That's going to be an interesting meeting!. .. .Handelsblatt.com:. .. .Defense. .. .A400M Funding Vote Put Back by a Week. .. .HB/sms BERLIN. To address concerns by the opposition and also the junior partner in the governing coalition, Germany's parliamentary budget committee will postpone by one week its decision on funding for the Airbus military transport aircraft, said Peter Struck, parliamentary leader of the governing Social Democratic Party, on Tuesday. . .. .Rezzo Schlauch, parliamentary leader of the Greens, the SDP's junior coalition partner, said the government would over the next few days be presenting supplementary declarations to the relevant application from the Defense Ministry. These would make it possible for Greens to vote in favor of granting the application. Without the support of the Greens, the request will be thrown out. . .. .The Defense Ministry's application – for the freeing up of 5.1 billion euros for the procurement of the first 40 of Germany's consignment of 73 of the A400M transporters – was to be put to the vote by the parliamentary committee on Wednesday. But the three Green budget experts on the committee – including Oswald Metzger, the party's spokesman on budgetary affairs – planned to vote against granting the application, saying they were concerned at certain aspects of the project's funding. . .. .Metzger said if his vote was to be won, Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping would have to amend the letter he signed as a supplement to the procurement contract. . .. .Under the terms of this letter, Germany will face legal claims from its partners in the eight-nation project if it fails to take its full share of 73 of the military transporters. The letter specifies that any reduction in Germany's order will give rise to "economic damage" for which Germany will become liable. . .. .Only part of the cost of the project – a total 5.1 billion euros, the sum that Scharping is now trying to free up – has been approved by parliament. Germany's partners insisted on the supplementary letter because parliamentary approval still had to be sought for some 3.5 billion euros of funding. That sum is to be included in the 2003 budget, whereas the 5.1 billion euros is in the 2001 budget. . .. .The Federal Audit Court has criticized the supplementary letter because it effectively removes the decision-making power from parliament. This view is shared by the three Green budget experts. "What kind of understanding is it of the parliamentary process if the only choice left to parliament is whether to spend billions on aircraft or on meeting claims for damages?" Metzger has asked.. .. .Meanwhile, the leading opposition party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union, takes the view that Scharping has circumvented parliamentary procedure in committing Germany to the A400M. The CDU's parliamentary leader, Friedrich Merz, said on Tuesday that if the parliamentary committee does eventually approve the freeing up of the 5.1 billion euros, his party will lodge a request for an injunction with the Federal Constitutional Court. . .. .The CDU withdrew an earlier request for an injunction after Scharping said that the government would only give a political signal for its 8.6 billion euros order, and it would not make a legally binding commitment. Two days later, he signed the supplementary letter, which many see as constituting just such a legally binding commitment. . .. . . . HANDELSBLATT, Dienstag, 12. März 2002, 21:33 Uhr

[ORAC]

Response from France and UK:. .. .Handelsblatt.com:. .. .Germany's Partners Wait Patiently for Military Airbus Decision. .. .HB/sms BERLIN/LONDON. Germany's decision to prolong the uncertainty over its procurement of Airbus A400M military transport planes by postponing a crucial parliamentary-committee vote on the subject met with measured responses from its key partners in the eight-nation project. . .. .An official from the orbit of France's defense minister, Alain Richard, said it was highly regrettable that the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder would be unable to keep its promise to get parliament to approve the funding of its share of the project by the end of March. But he said if it proves necessary to leave part of the decision to the next parliament, that will be acceptable, provided that the project is not in doubt. . .. .Still, a certain amount of frustration was palpable in some of the official's comments. "Since June last year, we've been waiting for a decision from the German parliament. That should be enough time." . .. .Meanwhile, a spokesman from the British Ministry of Defence told Handelsblatt that collaboration between London and Berlin remains constructive. He stressed the need for the A400M project to stand on a firm footing. Britain would hold firm to the joint Airbus project, but it would insist on a binding commitment from Germany. . .. .The question of whether Germany is actually able to give a binding commitment is central to the debate surrounding approval of its consignment of 73 A400M planes. This is the largest order from any single country, and if Germany proves unable to see it through, the whole project will almost certainly collapse. . .. .The German parliament has approved the setting aside of 5.1 billion euros from the 2002 budget for 40 planes. That leaves 3.5 billion euros to cover the remaining 33 planes, and this sum is to be included in the 2003 budget.. .. .The Defense Ministry had applied for the 5.1 billion euros to be freed up from the 2002 budget for the procurement of the first tranche of 40 planes. This was to be voted on by the parliamentary budget committee on Wednesday. But the government decided to put back the vote by one week to address concerns by the Greens, junior partner in the country's Social Democrat-led coalition. Since Green members on the committee had said they would vote against freeing up the money, the application looked set to be thrown out. . .. .The government now plans to present a supplementary declaration to the Defense Ministry's application. Volker Kröning, the Social Democratic Party's budget expert with special responsibility for defense, said that the declaration would not be ready before Monday or Tuesday, but it would be fully agreed with Germany's partners in the A400M project. . .. .Budget expert Oswald Metzger, one of three Greens on the committee, said if his vote was to be won, Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping would have to withdraw the letter he signed as a supplement to the procurement contract. And coalition insiders said Germany would be negotiating a new document with its partners, and this document would replace the letter. . .. .Under the terms of this letter, Germany will face legal claims from its partners in the eight-nation project if it fails to take its full share of 73 of the military transporters. The letter specifies that any reduction in Germany's order will give rise to "economic damage" for which Germany will become liable. Germany's partners insisted on the supplementary letter because parliamentary approval still had to be sought for the 3.5 billion euros needed to finance the second tranche of the country's order. . .. .The Federal Audit Court has criticized the supplementary letter because it effectively removes the decision-making power from parliament. This view is shared by the three Green budget experts. "What kind of understanding is it of the parliamentary process if the only choice left to parliament is whether to spend billions on aircraft or on meeting claims for damages?" Metzger has asked.

[BEagle]

The delays and frustrations facing this programme are just another example of how underfunded European nations cannot get their act together in a reasonable time frame to collaborate on military aircraft programmes.. .. .The A400M looks good on paper - it won't do many things that the C-17 has now been doing for years, but it'll do many more things than the C130 will. Let's hope that the A400M does go ahead - because at least then it won't be such a political hot potato should the A330 tanker project be binned in favour of the future tanker aircraft already chosen by Italy, Japan and the USA - the Boeing 767.. .. .How's that other European disgrace for a fighter aircraft coming along? On budget and on time is it.....??

[DuckDogers]

Some intersting points coming out of this thread but at the end of the day as BEagle et al have pointed out it does go to show what a mockery the European Military Aviation Industry is in. My only real point in commenting is that perhaps those involve in Smart Procurement, or should we say Not-So-Smart Procurement may actually learn something from this, then again perhaps not.. .. .The whole issue of the A400M has been another blatent display by the current government, god-bless them, to continue to politicize procurement for the UK Armed Forces. Is it not time given the continued reductions in UK defence expenditure, compared to an in many other countries; notably Australia 10% each year over the coming next 5, that the government of the day purchased the right equipment for the job that is available and proven that it works very well indeed, i refer to the C17 incase you had not guessed where this was leading.. .. .You only have to look at the money the UK will lose at the end of the lease deal to understand the system today is as bad it has been for many years. Role on next March when sunnier climbs beckon!!!

[BEagle]

Interesting comment in today's Sunday Times:. .. .Dominic O'Connell writes:. .. .'Ministry of Defence officials are drawing up contingency plans to buy more US-made transport aircraft if long-delayed plans for a European plane slip further.. . . .German budget wrangles have held up the pan-European A400M, to be made by Airbus. Germany’s commitment is vital for the £11 billion 196-aircraft project.. . . .Germany has agreed to buy 73 aircraft, but has missed a deadline to gain parliamentary support. It must now commit itself by March 31.. . . .A German government spokesman said last week that the government would seek to avoid paying other European nations penalties if it eventually bought fewer than 73 aircraft.. . . .Even if the A400M enters service on time in 2010, industry sources say, the Royal Air Force will face a shortage of transport aircraft at the end of the decade.. . . .It is understood that defence chiefs are thus examining leasing or buying five Boeing C-17 jet transports and 10 to 20 Lockheed Martin C130Ks (sic), the latest version of the venerable Hercules.. . . .A ministry spokesman said there would be no “capability gap” if the A400M came into service by 2010. He said that the department would review its options if the A400M programme slipped further.'

[Lybid]

DuckDogers . ."..that the government of the day purchased the right equipment for the job that is available and proven that it works very well indeed, i refer to the C17...". .. .Oh what traps our own logic sets for us... .Why does the 'right equipment for the job..' lead you inevitably to the C-17?. .. .European political development may yet come back to smite the A400M proponents across the face with a wet fish. Where will Germany go if the Airbus programme falls to pieces? Where will all the other nations go? Not everyone has the necessary moolah to go shopping in Long Beach and the An70 just continues happily completing its flight test programme and tooling up for production.. .Why spend 200 million usd, or is it 300 million these days, Beagle? for one C-17 when you could have 4 x An70 for that price? 4 simultaneous missions, 4 destinations, 4 x 47 tons payload..... .. .Liked your post of 26 Jan, Beagle.. .. .And on the subject of money for the C-17 deal. Anyone know just how much over the 3000 hours for the fleet has been knocked up so far? Anyone know the rate for the excess hours?. .. .Meanwhile, the An124 ploughs back and forth from BZZ and CGN to Bagram/Kabul carrying all the gear at peanut rates. Now there is a truly economical aircraft. When is it going to sink in that no European power, particularly the UK,would or could have gone anywhere requiring a passport for last 10 years without this aircraft. Oh, and guess who the latest regular customer is.. none other than Uncle Sam - who hasn't got enough airlift of his own.. .. .Brgds. .Lybid

[BEagle]

...and hasn't Uncle Spam also hired the An-225 as well?. .. .I didn't used to believe in the An70 until I did some private research. It certainly does seem to offer exceptionally good value for money; regrettably that won't be the sole selection criterion though - politics will have a part to play as well.. .. ."The An70 is a goddam Rooski airplane - an' we ain't gonna have no Commie airplane in thuh inventory. No siree Bob, No!" - are we certain that some people don't still think in this way?

[Lybid]

BEagle. .Been reading the trade press have we? Well spotted.. .A total misuse of capacity, using the An225 to transport 188 tons of MRE! Still, we make our living from such decisions, whether in or out of uniform.. .. .From your posts, you seem to be working the night shift 'at an airport somewhere in England'. Glad to see that the time has come in useful for some private reading on the An70.. .. .The fat lady has not yet sung and a Euro capacity of C-17s from the UK plus a combined fleet of An124s and An70 from other European sources would make everyone happy - except Toulouse Airbus, of course.. .. .yours. .Lybid

[ORAC]

Handelsblatt.com:. .. .German Parliament Approves Military Airbus Funding. .. .HB/sms BERLIN. Germany's parliamentary budget committee on Wednesday approved the release of the first tranche of funding for the country's consignment of Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, meaning that work can now commence on the 18 billion euro project. . .. .Germany was the last of the eight NATO partners involved to approve funding for the A400M. Its order for 73 of a total 196 aircraft to be built, the largest from a single nation, has a total value of 9.1 billion euros. . .. .Of that sum, only 5.1 billion euros, covering the cost of 40 planes, has been approved by parliament. It is included in the 2002 budget. Wednesday's vote means that this first amount can be released. . .. .Budget experts from the conservative-led opposition and, until yesterday, from the Greens, junior partner in the country's Social Democrat-led coalition government, had threatened to vote against granting Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping's request for the funds to be freed up. Although there was general cross-party acceptance of a need to procure the 73 aircraft, these experts objected on procedural grounds to a commitment that Scharping had made, in a supplementary declaration to the procurement order signed in January, to compensate Germany's partners in the event that parliament did not approve the remaining 4.4 billion euros of funding. . .. .That dispute has clearly been resolved. On Wednesday, Scharping said he had struck a deal with opposition parties, putting an end to months of constitutional wrangling. He also said he was sure that Germany's partners would accept the deal. . .. . But Britain, one of the fiercest critics of Germany's equivocation over A400M funding, was not willing to confirm that it had relaxed its demands. A spokesman for the Defence Ministry in London repeated the official line that Britain had asked Germany to make a firm financial commitment by the end of March. He said the British government was in regular contact with its seven partners in the project and all concerned would discuss the German decision at a meeting next Friday.