JSF and A400M at risk?
@Stopstart
Time for a change?
Umm, mods, could we think about splitting threads on JSF/F35 and A400M? They don't really seem to have much in common (apart from humungous lateness and unbelievable overbudgetness), and having them in the same thread just seems, well, perverse. And we don't want people thinking that about PPRuNe, do we?
airsound
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 17th Feb 2010 at 19:59. Reason: idiotic spelling
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't really seem to have much in common (apart from humungous lateness and unbelievable overbudgetness)
Namely, specifications that push the state of the art, forcing great technical risk-taking; diverse technical and industrial requirements by multiple customers; ... I'm sure we can identify more common drivers for the cost and delay.
If mods wish to split the two, fine; but at least consider what the two have in common.
Of course you're right, barit1 - I plead guilty to being slightly flippant. And obviously the factors you offer were the good reasons for starting the thread this way.
I feel we've moved on, though, and both aircraft are now at even more risk, perhaps, than when the thread started back in 2008. But the projects themselves are so different, and affect such different parts of the military spectrum, that they each deserve their own coverage.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way - perhaps it's not the mods' job to split threads. Should we start another 2 threads - anyone else feel supportive? Although as far as A400M is concerned, I suppose it could all end soon anyway.
Wallowing in a morass of indecision
airsound
I feel we've moved on, though, and both aircraft are now at even more risk, perhaps, than when the thread started back in 2008. But the projects themselves are so different, and affect such different parts of the military spectrum, that they each deserve their own coverage.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way - perhaps it's not the mods' job to split threads. Should we start another 2 threads - anyone else feel supportive? Although as far as A400M is concerned, I suppose it could all end soon anyway.
Wallowing in a morass of indecision
airsound
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Looks like the deal is done...
FT: Airbus uneasy over A400M rescue deal
A deal to rescue the A400M military transport aircraft was getting closer, the head of the group struggling to make the aircraft said yesterday.
However, Airbus chief Tom Enders said the €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package the European customers for the aircraft offered this week would not leave his group or its parent, EADS, in "a comfortable position".
"We've made progress. It is undeniable," Mr Enders told the Financial Times. "I call it the bare minimum of what we need to continue the programme. There are still quite a few important questions and clarifications needed. I think there's a good chance that we can come to an agreement. But you won't see me being enthusiastic. It would be good news for suppliers and employees, but financially and resources-wise it would remain a burden for years to come."
A final decision on the deal could be taken when it is discussed at a European defence ministers' meeting in Spain next week.........
FT: Airbus uneasy over A400M rescue deal
A deal to rescue the A400M military transport aircraft was getting closer, the head of the group struggling to make the aircraft said yesterday.
However, Airbus chief Tom Enders said the €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package the European customers for the aircraft offered this week would not leave his group or its parent, EADS, in "a comfortable position".
"We've made progress. It is undeniable," Mr Enders told the Financial Times. "I call it the bare minimum of what we need to continue the programme. There are still quite a few important questions and clarifications needed. I think there's a good chance that we can come to an agreement. But you won't see me being enthusiastic. It would be good news for suppliers and employees, but financially and resources-wise it would remain a burden for years to come."
A final decision on the deal could be taken when it is discussed at a European defence ministers' meeting in Spain next week.........
Last edited by ORAC; 19th Feb 2010 at 10:01.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, Airbus chief Tom Enders said the €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package the European customers for the aircraft offered this week would not leave his group or its parent, EADS, in "a comfortable position".
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defense News:
USAF May Shift F-35 In-service Date
ORLANDO, Fla. - Just weeks after the Pentagon announced a restructuring of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the U.S. Air Force is now re-evaluating when the plane will be considered ready for service, Air Combat Command chief Gen. William Fraser said Feb. 19. "We're taking a look at and we're re-evaluating our [initial operating capability] date and what our definition of that is," Fraser told reporters at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.
The general said that the restructuring, which was announced Feb. 1 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will extend the plane's system design and development (SDD) phase until 2015. That's two years after the air service had planned to begin operating the aircraft. "Whenever there are adjustments in any program, you've got to go back and take a look at if all the requirements are going to be met by timeframe X or Y," said Fraser.
The general said the service is also looking at how that extension will affect the number of aircraft, trained aircrew and spare parts the service has available by 2013. "The IOC focus is on combat capability, not on a date," he said.
Earlier this week, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the SDD phase of the program would be one year behind schedule. And yesterday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that the F-35 program is likely to breach Nunn-McCurdy limits on per-unit cost growth, which would likely require a formal notice to Congress.
U.S. Navy Takes Aim at 'Fighter Gap'
Each U.S. Navy strike fighter squadron will lose some of its 10 or 12 aircraft between deployments - one of several details emerging about the service's plans to ease an upcoming shortage of strike fighters.
The so-called fighter gap is coming as older F/A-18 A through D-model Hornet aircraft reach the end of their operational lives, not enough new E and F Strike Fighters are built to replace them and production of the later F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) lags. In a draft version of an upcoming statement to Congress obtained by Defense News, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, writes that the reduction in squadron size to "the minimum required" will take place during "non-deployed phases."
Navy Hornet squadrons already have been reduced to 10 aircraft per squadron. Super Hornet squadrons flying E and F models generally have 12 aircraft each. The service will accelerate the transition of five F/A-18C squadrons to E or F models using available Super Hornets, the draft statement said, "and will transition two additional legacy squadrons using Super Horner attrition reserve aircraft." Navy officials would not comment on the impact of using spare aircraft to fill out operational squadrons. "We will not discuss information in a draft," said Roughead spokesman Cmdr. Charlie Brown.
The fighter gap, forecast to peak around 2016, has been a matter of debate for a couple years, and was a major focus for requirements and budget planners over the past year. Planners, according to Navy Undersecretary Bob Work, had "pretty much eliminated any perceived strike fighter shortfall" in developing a new aviation procurement plan. But a Pentagon restructuring of the JSF program announced Feb. 1 pushed back the service entry dates for the plane, which is being built in separate versions for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. The move reopened the gap issue for the Navy.
"We felt very comfortable that we had a good, solid plan prior to the JSF restructuring," Work said Feb. 2. "And the JSF restructuring will cause us to look at it one more time."....
USAF May Shift F-35 In-service Date
ORLANDO, Fla. - Just weeks after the Pentagon announced a restructuring of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the U.S. Air Force is now re-evaluating when the plane will be considered ready for service, Air Combat Command chief Gen. William Fraser said Feb. 19. "We're taking a look at and we're re-evaluating our [initial operating capability] date and what our definition of that is," Fraser told reporters at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.
The general said that the restructuring, which was announced Feb. 1 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will extend the plane's system design and development (SDD) phase until 2015. That's two years after the air service had planned to begin operating the aircraft. "Whenever there are adjustments in any program, you've got to go back and take a look at if all the requirements are going to be met by timeframe X or Y," said Fraser.
The general said the service is also looking at how that extension will affect the number of aircraft, trained aircrew and spare parts the service has available by 2013. "The IOC focus is on combat capability, not on a date," he said.
Earlier this week, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the SDD phase of the program would be one year behind schedule. And yesterday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that the F-35 program is likely to breach Nunn-McCurdy limits on per-unit cost growth, which would likely require a formal notice to Congress.
U.S. Navy Takes Aim at 'Fighter Gap'
Each U.S. Navy strike fighter squadron will lose some of its 10 or 12 aircraft between deployments - one of several details emerging about the service's plans to ease an upcoming shortage of strike fighters.
The so-called fighter gap is coming as older F/A-18 A through D-model Hornet aircraft reach the end of their operational lives, not enough new E and F Strike Fighters are built to replace them and production of the later F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) lags. In a draft version of an upcoming statement to Congress obtained by Defense News, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, writes that the reduction in squadron size to "the minimum required" will take place during "non-deployed phases."
Navy Hornet squadrons already have been reduced to 10 aircraft per squadron. Super Hornet squadrons flying E and F models generally have 12 aircraft each. The service will accelerate the transition of five F/A-18C squadrons to E or F models using available Super Hornets, the draft statement said, "and will transition two additional legacy squadrons using Super Horner attrition reserve aircraft." Navy officials would not comment on the impact of using spare aircraft to fill out operational squadrons. "We will not discuss information in a draft," said Roughead spokesman Cmdr. Charlie Brown.
The fighter gap, forecast to peak around 2016, has been a matter of debate for a couple years, and was a major focus for requirements and budget planners over the past year. Planners, according to Navy Undersecretary Bob Work, had "pretty much eliminated any perceived strike fighter shortfall" in developing a new aviation procurement plan. But a Pentagon restructuring of the JSF program announced Feb. 1 pushed back the service entry dates for the plane, which is being built in separate versions for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. The move reopened the gap issue for the Navy.
"We felt very comfortable that we had a good, solid plan prior to the JSF restructuring," Work said Feb. 2. "And the JSF restructuring will cause us to look at it one more time."....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well...
It was an interesting read - particularly the point about the rugged undercarriage being suitable for STOL & rough field ops as well as the potential for being carrier borne.
Seeing as how Russian Naval Aviation tends to pass over catapult assisted launches in favour of brute thrust from the engines - perhaps 1SL should be seeking to support a wider european option for securing FAA fast air and trying for these and banging out from the F35.
Now there is a thought - F35 versus PAK-FA in AD, CAS & Strike?
Hmmmmm?
Seeing as how Russian Naval Aviation tends to pass over catapult assisted launches in favour of brute thrust from the engines - perhaps 1SL should be seeking to support a wider european option for securing FAA fast air and trying for these and banging out from the F35.
Now there is a thought - F35 versus PAK-FA in AD, CAS & Strike?
Hmmmmm?
I gather that MSN001 is undergoing routine maintenance and is planned to fly next on Feb 26th, at the end of which it will land at Toulouse.
I see in Flight that EADS has, at the request of Air Mobility Command, offered a plan for the US Air Force to purchase 118 Airbus A400Ms using savings from retiring most Lockheed Martin C-130Hs and all C-5As.....
See: EADS: USAF can buy 118 A400Ms with savings from C-130, C-5 retirements
I see in Flight that EADS has, at the request of Air Mobility Command, offered a plan for the US Air Force to purchase 118 Airbus A400Ms using savings from retiring most Lockheed Martin C-130Hs and all C-5As.....
See: EADS: USAF can buy 118 A400Ms with savings from C-130, C-5 retirements
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK... so, EADS wants us to replace some 300* C-130Hs (USAF, USAFR, ANG) and some 59 C-5As with 118 A400Ms?
118 A400M to replace ~359 C-130 & C-5A... 3x118=354.
That's just about a ratio of 1:3... 2 A400M to replace 5 C-130 & 1 C-5A.
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (C-130H): 36,000 lb
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (C-5A): 291,000 lb
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (A-400M): ~66,000 lb current; 82,000 lb planned
Just what do they think their aircraft can do?
The Mods would take exception were I express my true opinion of EADS' mental state and recreational chemical use.
*Factsheets : C-130 Hercules
Site last updated Oct. 2009
Active force, 145; Air National Guard, 181; Air Force Reserve, 102
Of these, 69 are J models, leaving 359 H & earlier, including special-purpose models.
118 A400M to replace ~359 C-130 & C-5A... 3x118=354.
That's just about a ratio of 1:3... 2 A400M to replace 5 C-130 & 1 C-5A.
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (C-130H): 36,000 lb
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (C-5A): 291,000 lb
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (A-400M): ~66,000 lb current; 82,000 lb planned
Just what do they think their aircraft can do?
The Mods would take exception were I express my true opinion of EADS' mental state and recreational chemical use.
*Factsheets : C-130 Hercules
Site last updated Oct. 2009
Active force, 145; Air National Guard, 181; Air Force Reserve, 102
Of these, 69 are J models, leaving 359 H & earlier, including special-purpose models.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 22nd Feb 2010 at 03:24.
GreenKnight 121, it was your Air Mobility Command which asked for the maximum cost saving solution......
You've also forgotten about the KC-45A capability, it seems.
So, put your silly comments to AMC, not EADS!
You've also forgotten about the KC-45A capability, it seems.
So, put your silly comments to AMC, not EADS!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Buyers resubmit "final" A400M offer -Germany
Buyer nations presented a final funding offer for the A400M military transporter plane to Airbus parent EADS on Friday without changes to a previous rescue plan, a German defence ministry spokesman says.
The spokesman said seven European NATO buyers were ready to accept a cost increase of 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion) for the transporter and to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros. However, they rejected further negotiations on financial or technical matters, he added.
EADS has been in negotiation for months for a rescue package for the troop carrier after technical problems and delays pushed Europe's largest defence project deep into the red. "The buyer nations put forward their final offer on February 19th," said the spokesman.
"They are sticking to the position they took on February 15th. They accept price increases of 2 billion euros and said they were prepared to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros."......
Buyer nations presented a final funding offer for the A400M military transporter plane to Airbus parent EADS on Friday without changes to a previous rescue plan, a German defence ministry spokesman says.
The spokesman said seven European NATO buyers were ready to accept a cost increase of 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion) for the transporter and to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros. However, they rejected further negotiations on financial or technical matters, he added.
EADS has been in negotiation for months for a rescue package for the troop carrier after technical problems and delays pushed Europe's largest defence project deep into the red. "The buyer nations put forward their final offer on February 19th," said the spokesman.
"They are sticking to the position they took on February 15th. They accept price increases of 2 billion euros and said they were prepared to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros."......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
GreenKnight 121, it was your Air Mobility Command which asked for the maximum cost saving solution......
You've also forgotten about the KC-45A capability, it seems.
So, put your silly comments to AMC, not EADS!
You've also forgotten about the KC-45A capability, it seems.
So, put your silly comments to AMC, not EADS!
Besides, it was EADS that said that 118 A400Ms (with no mention of any other aircraft capability... KC-45A or KC-767) could replace most C-130H & all C-5A... nearly 3 times the number of aircraft.
It is this response to AMC's RFP that I am ridiculing.
Do read what has been written with a bit more care:
Just in case you didn't spot it first time.
EADS North America has offered a plan for the US Air Force to purchase 118 Airbus A400Ms using savings from retiring most Lockheed Martin C-130Hs and all C-5As.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Age: 56
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article also doesn't say that EADS are intending to replace capacity or capability. It suggests that the savings that AMC make from having to retire most of their C-130 and C-5s would be enough to purchase 118 A400Ms.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
France warns EADS not to expect more aid on A400M
European defense and aerospace giant EADS should not expect any more government money to help salvage the over-budget A400M military transport plane, the French defense minister said Monday.
Herve Morin said customer governments had responded in writing Friday to EADS CEO Louis Gallois, after the company made a new offer to help resolve that funding issues that are plagued the plane's development.
"(The letter) said simply to Mr. Gallois, 'Here's what we've said, here's what we've confirmed, and don't expect any more,'" Morin told reporters of the latest to and fro communications between the two sides...........
European defense and aerospace giant EADS should not expect any more government money to help salvage the over-budget A400M military transport plane, the French defense minister said Monday.
Herve Morin said customer governments had responded in writing Friday to EADS CEO Louis Gallois, after the company made a new offer to help resolve that funding issues that are plagued the plane's development.
"(The letter) said simply to Mr. Gallois, 'Here's what we've said, here's what we've confirmed, and don't expect any more,'" Morin told reporters of the latest to and fro communications between the two sides...........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST (Ares): Stunning Reversal -- Schwartz Expects a Cost Breach on JSF
In a stunning reversal Feb. 19, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that a Joint Strike Fighter cost overrun is "possible, maybe even likely." This is only a few short weeks after he expressed more optimism that a breach of the Nunn McCurdy statute was not likely. Apparently, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during his Feb. 1 budget briefing, Schwartz says he now knows more about the program.
Lockheed Martin officials continue to say the cost of the aircraft is coming in under the predicted costs of the most recent selected acquisition report (SAR -- a cost report that informs Congress of major shifts to pricing of Pentagon programs).
The next SAR goes to Congress in March, and it is looking more and more likely that a "critical" breach will occur. This means that either the APUC (average per unit cost -- the total procurement cost divided by the procurement quantity) or the PAUC (program acquisition unit cost -- the cost of procurement, development and construction divided by the total procurement quantity) exceeds the original baseline price by 50%. The PAUC is the troublesome piece for the F-35. The cost predications Lockheed cites refer only to the flyaway price, which does not include the rising cost of development. According to a December 2009 CRS report, development cost about $47.1 billion. The Fiscal 201 budget request boosts that by about $2.8 billion.
So ... assuming the Nunn McCurdy is breached, what is next? Typically, the secretary of defense must certify that:
*the program is critical to national security
*no alternatives exist to provide equal capability at a reduced cost
*PAUC and APUC are reasonable, and
*program management is adequate to control PAUC and APUC.
The first two should be relatively easy for DoD,especially given the momentum behind the program. What is tough are the final two elements: are the prices reasonable and under control? It will be interesting to see how DoD defines reasonable (compared to what?) and how they are able to prove that management is sound enough to control future costs.
Gates has fired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Heinz ... and his replacement, a three-star admiral, is coming. But, Lockheed has not changed its management structure - Tom Burbage and Dan Crowley. During his press briefing Friday, Schwartz said that "Dan Crowley doesn't work for the SecDef," but that "he's short $600 million," referring to Gates's withhold of $614 worth of award fee from the company for its poor adherence to the test schedule and production of flight test assets. Schwartz did not, however, call for a change in leadership at Lockheed. "What occurred with the F-35 program was only a start," though, he said.
What could happen after a Nunn McCurdy declaration, however, would be to catch the interest of a lawmaker who could order a full review of the program. Remember what happened with the USAF plan to lease tankers to Boeing in 2001-2002 and what that sparked. One inquisitive lawmaker could put a major strain on the program. It will be interesting to see whether Congress delves further into its oversight role in the massive program.
In a stunning reversal Feb. 19, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that a Joint Strike Fighter cost overrun is "possible, maybe even likely." This is only a few short weeks after he expressed more optimism that a breach of the Nunn McCurdy statute was not likely. Apparently, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during his Feb. 1 budget briefing, Schwartz says he now knows more about the program.
Lockheed Martin officials continue to say the cost of the aircraft is coming in under the predicted costs of the most recent selected acquisition report (SAR -- a cost report that informs Congress of major shifts to pricing of Pentagon programs).
The next SAR goes to Congress in March, and it is looking more and more likely that a "critical" breach will occur. This means that either the APUC (average per unit cost -- the total procurement cost divided by the procurement quantity) or the PAUC (program acquisition unit cost -- the cost of procurement, development and construction divided by the total procurement quantity) exceeds the original baseline price by 50%. The PAUC is the troublesome piece for the F-35. The cost predications Lockheed cites refer only to the flyaway price, which does not include the rising cost of development. According to a December 2009 CRS report, development cost about $47.1 billion. The Fiscal 201 budget request boosts that by about $2.8 billion.
So ... assuming the Nunn McCurdy is breached, what is next? Typically, the secretary of defense must certify that:
*the program is critical to national security
*no alternatives exist to provide equal capability at a reduced cost
*PAUC and APUC are reasonable, and
*program management is adequate to control PAUC and APUC.
The first two should be relatively easy for DoD,especially given the momentum behind the program. What is tough are the final two elements: are the prices reasonable and under control? It will be interesting to see how DoD defines reasonable (compared to what?) and how they are able to prove that management is sound enough to control future costs.
Gates has fired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Heinz ... and his replacement, a three-star admiral, is coming. But, Lockheed has not changed its management structure - Tom Burbage and Dan Crowley. During his press briefing Friday, Schwartz said that "Dan Crowley doesn't work for the SecDef," but that "he's short $600 million," referring to Gates's withhold of $614 worth of award fee from the company for its poor adherence to the test schedule and production of flight test assets. Schwartz did not, however, call for a change in leadership at Lockheed. "What occurred with the F-35 program was only a start," though, he said.
What could happen after a Nunn McCurdy declaration, however, would be to catch the interest of a lawmaker who could order a full review of the program. Remember what happened with the USAF plan to lease tankers to Boeing in 2001-2002 and what that sparked. One inquisitive lawmaker could put a major strain on the program. It will be interesting to see whether Congress delves further into its oversight role in the massive program.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, BEagle... I'll bite.
What percentage of ~300* C-130Hs do you call "most"?
Hint: 51%-75% = "over half".
So, lets say 75%... that's 225 to be replaced... so that's down to 4 C-130H & 1 C-5A replaced by 2 A400M.
Still ain't gonna come anywhere near replacing capability.
So for the US to keep up capability we would need to either buy a lot more A400M or keep well over half the C-130Hs... either one would cost a lot more than just keeping what we have & slowly exchanging C-130H with C-130J.
We've got all the heavy transport we need.
*Air Mobility Command (who the study is for) runs all transports & tankers in the USAF, USAFR, & ANG... not just the USAF.
What percentage of ~300* C-130Hs do you call "most"?
Hint: 51%-75% = "over half".
So, lets say 75%... that's 225 to be replaced... so that's down to 4 C-130H & 1 C-5A replaced by 2 A400M.
Still ain't gonna come anywhere near replacing capability.
So for the US to keep up capability we would need to either buy a lot more A400M or keep well over half the C-130Hs... either one would cost a lot more than just keeping what we have & slowly exchanging C-130H with C-130J.
We've got all the heavy transport we need.
*Air Mobility Command (who the study is for) runs all transports & tankers in the USAF, USAFR, & ANG... not just the USAF.