JSF and A400M at risk?
AW101 Merlin Costs - Hansard May 2007
Adam Ingram
At today's exchange rates, that's roughly $55,400 & $68,600 respectively and they'll be around until 2030. Those F35's are beginning to look like a bargain.
Adam Ingram
The total operating cost per hour is approximately £34,000 for the Merlin Mk 3 and is approximately £42,000 for the Merlin Mk 1.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M - still no solution
The Depeche du Midi reports today that the extended meeting of EADS and partner governments has ended (22 Jan) without an agreement. The paper also says that various proposals are still being investigated; the German position remains that they are still interested, but "not at any price" - similar to the UK position (my addition).
It's still expected that a mutually satisfactory agreement will be reached at "a further meeting" before the end of January.
La Depeche also points out that if, for example, Germany agreed to take fewer aircraft "up front" and more (at a different price) later, they would lose their preponderant position (60 aircraft) in the customer list. This, it is suggested, would not be politically accepted in Germany. (There was a suggestion earlier that the order for 60 was placed to ensure that "die Franzosen" didn't have the upper hand).
Meanwhile, we can look forward to more pics of the A400M airborne - hopefully while doing its slow speed trials, with perhaps even a firing of the "kick up the butt" rockets, though the situation would have to be pretty hair-raising if that happened.
23/1. Avweek reports today that a further meeting is set for Tuesday 26th ... the reports of problems within the German coalition government may mean that Fr. Dr. Merkel will have a hard time getting Cabinet/Parliamentary approval for whatever is decided. With GM cutting jobs at Opel, for example, and other industrial problems, further job losses would be hard to justify. But so would extra expense ...
What's the betting this will go down to the wire, as all concerned seem to be in their own private "rock and hard place" situation ?
It's still expected that a mutually satisfactory agreement will be reached at "a further meeting" before the end of January.
La Depeche also points out that if, for example, Germany agreed to take fewer aircraft "up front" and more (at a different price) later, they would lose their preponderant position (60 aircraft) in the customer list. This, it is suggested, would not be politically accepted in Germany. (There was a suggestion earlier that the order for 60 was placed to ensure that "die Franzosen" didn't have the upper hand).
Meanwhile, we can look forward to more pics of the A400M airborne - hopefully while doing its slow speed trials, with perhaps even a firing of the "kick up the butt" rockets, though the situation would have to be pretty hair-raising if that happened.
23/1. Avweek reports today that a further meeting is set for Tuesday 26th ... the reports of problems within the German coalition government may mean that Fr. Dr. Merkel will have a hard time getting Cabinet/Parliamentary approval for whatever is decided. With GM cutting jobs at Opel, for example, and other industrial problems, further job losses would be hard to justify. But so would extra expense ...
What's the betting this will go down to the wire, as all concerned seem to be in their own private "rock and hard place" situation ?
Last edited by Jig Peter; 23rd Jan 2010 at 11:41. Reason: Add update
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JigP, Jacko et al;
All very interesting. But ultimately EADS / Airbus is in the stickiest position here: they're the ones in contractual default, irrespective of the position of the test programme. Again, my questions are about the contractual position:
- How much cash do we get back if we terminate the programme?
- What damages are due to the partners for the delays?
- What is the controlling law for the contract?
And on JSF.... the DOT&E report is interesting ready. Makes you wonder whether the Administration is gutsy enough to bin the F-35B; I hope that they are. Assuming that CVF dies in the defence review, the UK would do well to push its buy back to the point at which the full spec of Block 3.0 has been proved (ie, sometime around 2019/20).
S41
All very interesting. But ultimately EADS / Airbus is in the stickiest position here: they're the ones in contractual default, irrespective of the position of the test programme. Again, my questions are about the contractual position:
- How much cash do we get back if we terminate the programme?
- What damages are due to the partners for the delays?
- What is the controlling law for the contract?
And on JSF.... the DOT&E report is interesting ready. Makes you wonder whether the Administration is gutsy enough to bin the F-35B; I hope that they are. Assuming that CVF dies in the defence review, the UK would do well to push its buy back to the point at which the full spec of Block 3.0 has been proved (ie, sometime around 2019/20).
S41
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equivicator
Thanks - and good. If this is the case, then the partners can go to the Court and request that the court order specific performance (Specific performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - in other words, order EADS to implement the contract at their expense.
EADS would hate it, but that's the law under which they signed the contract. Ho hum.
S41
Thanks - and good. If this is the case, then the partners can go to the Court and request that the court order specific performance (Specific performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - in other words, order EADS to implement the contract at their expense.
EADS would hate it, but that's the law under which they signed the contract. Ho hum.
S41
Getting your money back
I'm not a lawyer, but mightn't it depend on who the contract signatory is on the supplier side.
Was it "Airbus Military"? Isn't that a separate legal entity to Airbus or EADS?
If yes & yes, what would be the consequences of Airbus Military just declaring bankruptcy?
Apart from no money back for UK MoD, I mean.
Admittedly, it's the "nuke option", but I'll bet all the senior management would walk away and somehow find themselves still living the lifestyle to which they've been allowed to become accustomed, and the shareholders (EADS, CASA & ...) would just have to write off their shareholding values, which would be a minuscule amount compared to paying back all the money.
Was it "Airbus Military"? Isn't that a separate legal entity to Airbus or EADS?
If yes & yes, what would be the consequences of Airbus Military just declaring bankruptcy?
Apart from no money back for UK MoD, I mean.
Admittedly, it's the "nuke option", but I'll bet all the senior management would walk away and somehow find themselves still living the lifestyle to which they've been allowed to become accustomed, and the shareholders (EADS, CASA & ...) would just have to write off their shareholding values, which would be a minuscule amount compared to paying back all the money.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curtains for the F35B
Quite agree with the doom-mongers about the F35B.
It must rank as one of the most over-hyped and unrealistic aircraft in military aviation history - a sort of a 'Aircraft design Masters programme group design project', that somehow made the leap into full-scale reality.
The spin from about 10years ago was almost that the STOVL kit was a module that was one of few deviations form the 'common' JSF layout, and the rest would be straightforward. Now we know different. The development program is late, and getting later. Time is money, and of course it is way over-budget. Money is flowing as though the recession wasn't happening.
It is also true that the technical aspects, whilst almost 'engineers-pants-wetting' exciting, they are just about on the boundary (and perhaps beyond) what we understand about the engineering of hot & cold air flows, jets & turbomachinery etc etc. It will be a miracle if one isn't lost in development given the amount of flying, and once budgetary pressures start to bite. However, the idea that this will be the staple of UK expeditionary aviation is incredible - anyone for a VL with a plane that has had several hundred hours of sand through the various blades and holes of its Lift system (not to mention salt water)?
That's before we've even looked at cost; if the MOD is fretting today about £85k/hour for Typhoon ops, what will the UK's F35B's cost? My guess is that they'll hardly ever leave Blighty - they'll spend a lot of time being maintained, and as recruiting tools at airshows, after the pilots have perfected the Harrier's airshow 'nod'!
cheers!
It must rank as one of the most over-hyped and unrealistic aircraft in military aviation history - a sort of a 'Aircraft design Masters programme group design project', that somehow made the leap into full-scale reality.
The spin from about 10years ago was almost that the STOVL kit was a module that was one of few deviations form the 'common' JSF layout, and the rest would be straightforward. Now we know different. The development program is late, and getting later. Time is money, and of course it is way over-budget. Money is flowing as though the recession wasn't happening.
It is also true that the technical aspects, whilst almost 'engineers-pants-wetting' exciting, they are just about on the boundary (and perhaps beyond) what we understand about the engineering of hot & cold air flows, jets & turbomachinery etc etc. It will be a miracle if one isn't lost in development given the amount of flying, and once budgetary pressures start to bite. However, the idea that this will be the staple of UK expeditionary aviation is incredible - anyone for a VL with a plane that has had several hundred hours of sand through the various blades and holes of its Lift system (not to mention salt water)?
That's before we've even looked at cost; if the MOD is fretting today about £85k/hour for Typhoon ops, what will the UK's F35B's cost? My guess is that they'll hardly ever leave Blighty - they'll spend a lot of time being maintained, and as recruiting tools at airshows, after the pilots have perfected the Harrier's airshow 'nod'!
cheers!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M and 'managing the contractor'
for those in this thread that think that you can beat up Airbus about the A400M's failings, it almost ceratinly won't happen.
The UK (& prob European) military aerospace industry exists in a weird 'no man's land' where it works to what look like normal contracts, that stipulate delivery of a certain performance, at specified times and costs. However, even under the best conditions, the performance requirements align with the contractors wishes well in advance. Also the cost and time are entirely negotiable.
The whole military aerospace industry is currenty on the edge of viability, therefore one little nudge, from a contract that goes wrong, or some penalties that need to be paid, could send it off the edge.
Although MOD will try and beat-up the contractor, sitting above the MOD are politicians, the guardians of UK plc, who will ensure that the MOD does not do any real damage to the industry.
I believe that the Chief of Airbus has already said it would be better to 'end the horror' than have 'horror without end'
The UK (& prob European) military aerospace industry exists in a weird 'no man's land' where it works to what look like normal contracts, that stipulate delivery of a certain performance, at specified times and costs. However, even under the best conditions, the performance requirements align with the contractors wishes well in advance. Also the cost and time are entirely negotiable.
The whole military aerospace industry is currenty on the edge of viability, therefore one little nudge, from a contract that goes wrong, or some penalties that need to be paid, could send it off the edge.
Although MOD will try and beat-up the contractor, sitting above the MOD are politicians, the guardians of UK plc, who will ensure that the MOD does not do any real damage to the industry.
I believe that the Chief of Airbus has already said it would be better to 'end the horror' than have 'horror without end'
Agreed, as the French, Spanish and UK appear willing to agree major concessions (75% of the platforms for 100% of the price – A bargain). However I believe it’s the Germans who are taking this one to the wire. If the A400M fails, then we could see the end of Airbus Military.
Just a thought, but the A400M test platform is far heavier than initial design and although deliveries will shed weight - but not as much as has been gained, this likely leaves the German’s with a predicament, as I suspect they will want to make the Stan without so much as a splash and dash.
If the case, they would likely include severe penalties to Airbus Military if the delivered product does not meet spec, penalties AM might not be willing to accept, so more than a little brinkmanship required.
I mean, which military would buy a product that doesn’t do the job?
As is always the case, it’s more about jobs than the requirement.
Just a thought, but the A400M test platform is far heavier than initial design and although deliveries will shed weight - but not as much as has been gained, this likely leaves the German’s with a predicament, as I suspect they will want to make the Stan without so much as a splash and dash.
If the case, they would likely include severe penalties to Airbus Military if the delivered product does not meet spec, penalties AM might not be willing to accept, so more than a little brinkmanship required.
I mean, which military would buy a product that doesn’t do the job?
As is always the case, it’s more about jobs than the requirement.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
75% of the airframes for 100% of the cost does in fact seem quite a bargain compared to the Nimrod fiasco. What would be the equivalent figures for that programme? 30% of the airframes for 500% of the cost?
I do not suggest that what is happening to A400M is good, I am just surprised at the double standards applied to BAE systems and Airbus.
I do not suggest that what is happening to A400M is good, I am just surprised at the double standards applied to BAE systems and Airbus.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in northern Germany we see quite a bit about this program in the local papers because Airbus in general is an important employer. (I haven't bothered to figure it out but I guess the A400M figures into the local jobs picture in addition to the civil aircraft programs.)
If I am reading the tea leaves correctly then the program will continue without much regard to the end product's real capabilities, let alone when it will finally be available for use, just because it means jobs. Of course at the end of the day it will probably be seen that the real cost of each job was so high that it would be better to just end the A400M program, pay off the workers and send them into early retirement now, and then buy C-17s. Far too embarassing a solution for the partners in the program ever to adopt, that one.
The last article I read said that the Turks want their A400Ms for the fixed price with the promised capabilities. How odd! Do you suppose that they will get their money back from the other partners in the program so that it can continue?
If I am reading the tea leaves correctly then the program will continue without much regard to the end product's real capabilities, let alone when it will finally be available for use, just because it means jobs. Of course at the end of the day it will probably be seen that the real cost of each job was so high that it would be better to just end the A400M program, pay off the workers and send them into early retirement now, and then buy C-17s. Far too embarassing a solution for the partners in the program ever to adopt, that one.
The last article I read said that the Turks want their A400Ms for the fixed price with the promised capabilities. How odd! Do you suppose that they will get their money back from the other partners in the program so that it can continue?
S41 - Nail on head. Even if the F-35B Transformer Jet remotely works, the CONOPS makes no sense.
One is the reason you mention: if the adversary is playing at a level where stealth is essential, is the President really going to send an MEU in without a carrier?
Related issue: the Navy "amphib" at the heart of the MEU carries troops, vehicles, equipment, helicopters & all, so it can only carry a limited number of fighters - not enough to mount a defensive CAP and carry out offensive ops at the same time.
The USMC has been deluding itself in this area for some time, with the BVR/AMRAAM "capability" on the AV-8B Plus - which has never remotely been used, and given the age of the radar probably amounts to nose ballast.
Tom L:
"The spin from about 10years ago was almost that the STOVL kit was a module that was one of few deviations from the 'common' JSF layout, and the rest would be straightforward."
So it was. But it's more accurate to say that the STOVL is the central version. The F-35A is the STOVL version with the lift system pulled out, a 9g airframe and a gun, and the F-35C loses the lift system and gets a different wing and tail.
And I would bet that the percentage of airframe parts that are common to all three versions is in the low single digits by now. The radome, perhaps.
One is the reason you mention: if the adversary is playing at a level where stealth is essential, is the President really going to send an MEU in without a carrier?
Related issue: the Navy "amphib" at the heart of the MEU carries troops, vehicles, equipment, helicopters & all, so it can only carry a limited number of fighters - not enough to mount a defensive CAP and carry out offensive ops at the same time.
The USMC has been deluding itself in this area for some time, with the BVR/AMRAAM "capability" on the AV-8B Plus - which has never remotely been used, and given the age of the radar probably amounts to nose ballast.
Tom L:
"The spin from about 10years ago was almost that the STOVL kit was a module that was one of few deviations from the 'common' JSF layout, and the rest would be straightforward."
So it was. But it's more accurate to say that the STOVL is the central version. The F-35A is the STOVL version with the lift system pulled out, a 9g airframe and a gun, and the F-35C loses the lift system and gets a different wing and tail.
And I would bet that the percentage of airframe parts that are common to all three versions is in the low single digits by now. The radome, perhaps.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Financial Times: Talks to save A400M end in deadlock
Talks to save one of Europe's largest defence projects have ended in deadlock, in spite of governments offering to pay EADS €2bn to help cover huge cost overruns on the A400M military transporter.
Several people close to the talks told the Financial Times that Germany, France, the UK and four other European countries had signalled they would be willing to help with extra costs.
The project is more than €5bn (£4.3bn) above the €20bn fixed price EADS subsidiary Airbus agreed to almost seven years ago. The 180-aircraft order for the transport plane, being designed and built by Airbus, is at least four years late. EADS has threatened to abandon the A400M if the seven governments fail to fund a large portion of the cost overrun, as it believes its civil business could struggle with new tasks such as the looming redesign of its A320.
While France, the UK and Spain signalled early on they would be prepared to pay more, or use other methods such as stretching delivery times, Berlin had until now dug its heels in about making changes to the original contract. Officials on both sides said Berlin had softened its line and joined its partners in offering to compensate EADS for €2bn in costs - although it remained open whether this would be through cash payments or by finding ways to reduce production costs.
Other people close to the talks confirmed that the seven governments had tabled a "global offer" but that EADS had rejected it because it was still "billions away" from a figure that would be acceptable to the company. Officials on both sides said EADS also had rejected an offer of state credit guarantees, which would have meant it could borrow to cover cost-overruns. But these people said a credit-guarantee could still be in a deal.
Government officials reported that EADS in effect had raised the amount of money it was looking for by adding a formula to the €5bn cost-overrun to compensate for raw material price rises and some other price increases. "We started the talks looking to bridge a gap of around €5bn," an official briefed about the talks told the FT. "However, we ended the talks aware that EADS was really looking for around €6bn-€7bn."
Government procurement ministers and the heads of EADS and Airbus, Louis Gallois and Tom Enders, spent the end of last week and Tuesday of this week pushing for deal before a self-imposed deadline of January 31. One person close to the negotiations said the talks had ended on "bad terms" and spoke of "a deadlock situation" but all sides were expected to attempt one more meeting before the Franco-German summit late next week.
Officials in Paris and Berlin said the issue was still being dealt with at defence-ministry levels, but that it was now possible Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, and Angela Merkel, German chancellor, would discuss the issue, at least informally.
Talks to save one of Europe's largest defence projects have ended in deadlock, in spite of governments offering to pay EADS €2bn to help cover huge cost overruns on the A400M military transporter.
Several people close to the talks told the Financial Times that Germany, France, the UK and four other European countries had signalled they would be willing to help with extra costs.
The project is more than €5bn (£4.3bn) above the €20bn fixed price EADS subsidiary Airbus agreed to almost seven years ago. The 180-aircraft order for the transport plane, being designed and built by Airbus, is at least four years late. EADS has threatened to abandon the A400M if the seven governments fail to fund a large portion of the cost overrun, as it believes its civil business could struggle with new tasks such as the looming redesign of its A320.
While France, the UK and Spain signalled early on they would be prepared to pay more, or use other methods such as stretching delivery times, Berlin had until now dug its heels in about making changes to the original contract. Officials on both sides said Berlin had softened its line and joined its partners in offering to compensate EADS for €2bn in costs - although it remained open whether this would be through cash payments or by finding ways to reduce production costs.
Other people close to the talks confirmed that the seven governments had tabled a "global offer" but that EADS had rejected it because it was still "billions away" from a figure that would be acceptable to the company. Officials on both sides said EADS also had rejected an offer of state credit guarantees, which would have meant it could borrow to cover cost-overruns. But these people said a credit-guarantee could still be in a deal.
Government officials reported that EADS in effect had raised the amount of money it was looking for by adding a formula to the €5bn cost-overrun to compensate for raw material price rises and some other price increases. "We started the talks looking to bridge a gap of around €5bn," an official briefed about the talks told the FT. "However, we ended the talks aware that EADS was really looking for around €6bn-€7bn."
Government procurement ministers and the heads of EADS and Airbus, Louis Gallois and Tom Enders, spent the end of last week and Tuesday of this week pushing for deal before a self-imposed deadline of January 31. One person close to the negotiations said the talks had ended on "bad terms" and spoke of "a deadlock situation" but all sides were expected to attempt one more meeting before the Franco-German summit late next week.
Officials in Paris and Berlin said the issue was still being dealt with at defence-ministry levels, but that it was now possible Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, and Angela Merkel, German chancellor, would discuss the issue, at least informally.
Kawasaki XC-2
Has seemingly been hiding under the radar all this time, but had its first flight this week.
It appears to be a poor man's A400M!
Presume the CF6 a convienient but non-ideal of choice of motor?
sorry for the wiki link - slim pickings from google!
Kawasaki C-X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AIR International: For the best in modern military and commerical aviation
It appears to be a poor man's A400M!
Presume the CF6 a convienient but non-ideal of choice of motor?
sorry for the wiki link - slim pickings from google!
Kawasaki C-X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AIR International: For the best in modern military and commerical aviation
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF pilot flies JSF
There are still some people who think its the future.
RAF man pilots Joint Strike Fighter - Defence Management
RAF man pilots Joint Strike Fighter - Defence Management
Champagne anyone...?
Might be unrelated, but Antonov 70 has just flown into Brize Norton
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi
typerated
Just interested why you say the CF-6s would be a non-optimal choice?
the plane could be designed (sized) around the engines. Looks like it means business
On JSF, they'll likely be queue to test fly it. Actually test flight indications are good so far, though for scpetics, that was never the main issue. Lots of complicated planes make it through dev programmes, it is the in-service experience and particularly the costs that may be difficult.
typerated
Just interested why you say the CF-6s would be a non-optimal choice?
the plane could be designed (sized) around the engines. Looks like it means business
On JSF, they'll likely be queue to test fly it. Actually test flight indications are good so far, though for scpetics, that was never the main issue. Lots of complicated planes make it through dev programmes, it is the in-service experience and particularly the costs that may be difficult.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's OCCAR ?
In all this A400M imbroglio, it seems that things have been being handled, at least in this latest round of brinkmanship, on a direct contractor/government (MinDef & above) basis. Where then does this OCCAR thing fit in ?
Is it a set of MinDef minions from various lands who perhaps swap hats as their function changes from "OCCAR" to Ministerial rep. ?
And what was it doing as the programme costs rose and the timeline stretched out?
Seems like an ineffective multilingual quango ... But then as a total outsider, who am I to judge?
(Dons full body and head armour and retires to bunker).
Is it a set of MinDef minions from various lands who perhaps swap hats as their function changes from "OCCAR" to Ministerial rep. ?
And what was it doing as the programme costs rose and the timeline stretched out?
Seems like an ineffective multilingual quango ... But then as a total outsider, who am I to judge?
(Dons full body and head armour and retires to bunker).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a mere piece of pond-life who represented a putative sub-contractor on FLA in the early 80's (and who was asked to get his company to put money into the pot), can anybody explain to me the real reasons for the move to and, more significantly, the continued adherence to the UDF power plant concept on the A-400?
U.S. Industry had dumped it by the end of the 80's.
U.S. Industry had dumped it by the end of the 80's.
Last edited by RETDPI; 29th Jan 2010 at 18:24.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OCCAR
J P
Yes - sort of. Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (French: Organisation conjointe de coopération en matière d'armement ;OCCAR) is a European intergovernmental organisation which facilitates and manages collaborative armament programmes between the nations of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.
See here: Welcome to occar and here for the shorter version Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the A400M talks continue next week; no agreement today:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense
...I couldn't possibly comment... No need for the body armour, etc., J P - I'm with you.
Where then does this OCCAR thing fit in ?
Is it a set of MinDef minions from various lands who perhaps swap hats as their function changes from "OCCAR" to Ministerial rep. ?
Is it a set of MinDef minions from various lands who perhaps swap hats as their function changes from "OCCAR" to Ministerial rep. ?
See here: Welcome to occar and here for the shorter version Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the A400M talks continue next week; no agreement today:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense
LONDON — Despite urging by industry for talks on the future of the A400M military transport aircraft to be wrapped up this month, negotiations will continue in February.
After a series of talks in recent weeks failed to resolve differences over how to split the 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in additional cost required to see the program through, government and industry officials are to convene again in Berlin on Feb. 2 to settle the issue... etc., etc....
After a series of talks in recent weeks failed to resolve differences over how to split the 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in additional cost required to see the program through, government and industry officials are to convene again in Berlin on Feb. 2 to settle the issue... etc., etc....
And what was it doing as the programme costs rose and the timeline stretched out?
Seems like an ineffective multilingual quango ... But then as a total outsider, who am I to judge?
Seems like an ineffective multilingual quango ... But then as a total outsider, who am I to judge?
Last edited by Sgt.Slabber; 29th Jan 2010 at 17:22.