A400 M is behind schedule. 17th Oct
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400 M is behind schedule. 17th Oct
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7048103.stm
17th Oct 2007
Military plane launch is delayed
Airbus has announced that delivery of the A400 M military transport plane is behind schedule.
The aircraft, whose composite wings are made at Filton near Bristol, will replace fleets in seven NATO nations. The European aerospace group, EADS, designer of the plane's digital map technology, is expected to issue a statement with details on Wednesday. The A400 M's first flight was scheduled for January 2008, but it may now be delayed until July 2008.
17th Oct 2007
Military plane launch is delayed
Airbus has announced that delivery of the A400 M military transport plane is behind schedule.
The aircraft, whose composite wings are made at Filton near Bristol, will replace fleets in seven NATO nations. The European aerospace group, EADS, designer of the plane's digital map technology, is expected to issue a statement with details on Wednesday. The A400 M's first flight was scheduled for January 2008, but it may now be delayed until July 2008.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange that it is not yet on the Airbus Military website
Strange that it is not yet on the Airbus Military website
On the Airbus Military Website Countdown page, the program timeline at the bottom, shows First Flight as 2008 Q2.
Firts flight of Flying Test Bed is still listed as 2007 Q4
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just funny that the latest press release (from Apr 07) is entitled 'A400M Delivery Programme on time'!!!
ZH - don't think those dates have changed yet, IIRC they are the original ones.
I am not knocking this programme, I have lots of confidence in the A400M and Airbus delivering it. All programmes of this scale suffer setbacks, I wish them luck with keeping delays down to there current levels.
ZH - don't think those dates have changed yet, IIRC they are the original ones.
I am not knocking this programme, I have lots of confidence in the A400M and Airbus delivering it. All programmes of this scale suffer setbacks, I wish them luck with keeping delays down to there current levels.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It strikes me we shouldn't be buying it. Spend the money on giving the C-130J fleet the bells and whistles they need so the K can be retired (it must almost be at critical mass now anyway), a few more C-17 and we've got a far more rational AT fleet (ignoring the thorney issue of FSTA!) based on 2 types.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French TV
Just spent 3 days in France. This appreared to be quite big news. They reported that the aircraft was overweight and that the RR engines were not 'man enough' to cope! It reported that the '6-month delay' would probably mean 2 years (minimum).
http://www.france24.com/france24Publ...ar-flight.html
http://www.france24.com/france24Publ...ar-flight.html
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really cannot understand how Airbus have got themselves into this situation. The airplane is years late already, some customers I suspect will walk over to Boeing for the C17. They must be rubing their hands with glee.
How can they be over weight with todays accuracy of CAD design.
If I was Airbus I would now be very worried about big cancelations.
Regards
Col
How can they be over weight with todays accuracy of CAD design.
If I was Airbus I would now be very worried about big cancelations.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herkman
I guess that cancelling is not an option. Contract Airbus has is watertight and does not allow anyone to back out without compensating the other nations for the lost work (effectively customer pays anyway). We all know how much military projects are fettled with after contract signature - it would be easy for Airbus to blame the customers for the delays and not provide a refund! The crime here is the original ambiguous and wishy washy contract that did not adequately describe exactly what we required.
That said, I can't think of a company that could turn around a new programme like this as quickly as Airbus. Delays are our fault, as usual...
I guess that cancelling is not an option. Contract Airbus has is watertight and does not allow anyone to back out without compensating the other nations for the lost work (effectively customer pays anyway). We all know how much military projects are fettled with after contract signature - it would be easy for Airbus to blame the customers for the delays and not provide a refund! The crime here is the original ambiguous and wishy washy contract that did not adequately describe exactly what we required.
That said, I can't think of a company that could turn around a new programme like this as quickly as Airbus. Delays are our fault, as usual...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF must really be concerned.
Yet another delay with a A400M, must really have people scratching their heads of what to do.
Allowing for the fact that it will take some time, after delivery to get the aircraft operational, it looks like three years before you have a real asset.
Cannot see the K models going that long without heaps of money and time being spent.
Airplane too heavy will mean.
Perhaps a lower payload at maximim range.
Perhaps lower air speed, which also could impact on range.
Pushing the HP up on the engines could mean higher fuel burn, with corresponding drop of in range and engine life.
There is still the chance that like the Belfast, it will fly too slow, which could agravate all of the above.
Perhaps more C17 may be the way to go.
Anyone any thoughts or comments.
Thank God the RAAF did not buy
Regards
Col
Allowing for the fact that it will take some time, after delivery to get the aircraft operational, it looks like three years before you have a real asset.
Cannot see the K models going that long without heaps of money and time being spent.
Airplane too heavy will mean.
Perhaps a lower payload at maximim range.
Perhaps lower air speed, which also could impact on range.
Pushing the HP up on the engines could mean higher fuel burn, with corresponding drop of in range and engine life.
There is still the chance that like the Belfast, it will fly too slow, which could agravate all of the above.
Perhaps more C17 may be the way to go.
Anyone any thoughts or comments.
Thank God the RAAF did not buy
Regards
Col
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get carried away, let's keep this in perspective. C17 was an absolute dog when being developed - hugely over budget, very late and with some nightmare tech problems. In time that has sorted itself out and become everyone's favourite toy.
A400M will be a good piece of kit, it may just take a bit longer than expected, but we are used to that....
A400M will be a good piece of kit, it may just take a bit longer than expected, but we are used to that....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M Delay
When have we ever recieved a bit of equipment on time and to budget. I'm sure the extra C-17s will come in handy! How long will the Herc K last? What will be the interim replacement of the VC10s? Will we totally lose the AR capability until FSTA comes in? Twas ever thus!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What will be the interim replacement of the VC10s?
The TriStar fleet is so committed to the Afghan airbridge that it would struggle to provide more than 2 aircraft for the AAR duties. In the absence of the VC10, one of these would have to be on QRA, leaving the RAF with a grand total of zero gusting one tanker for ops, trails and routine trg.
Shares in Omega anyone?
