A400 Doomed?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?
Be interesting to see where that came from being as there is a whole load of work going on in my area looking at the justification on both sides of the argument and we haven't heard anything!!
Be interesting to see where that came from being as there is a whole load of work going on in my area looking at the justification on both sides of the argument and we haven't heard anything!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it wouldn't surprise me if it is cancelled unfortunatley A400 has missed the boat most countries need the capability now and won't have the budget in the future to afford it.
may they should have got Bombardier to dust of the plans of the Belfast and put more modern engines on it!
may they should have got Bombardier to dust of the plans of the Belfast and put more modern engines on it!
Nurse
You mean like the Europrop TP400-600? (Hint - what is it that's holding up the A-400M's long-delayed first flight?)
(Perhaps I should add that I'm a great Belfast fan, having been the Last Flt Cdr Ops on 53.)
But, slightly more seriously - baby-spice - please do enlighten us as to the source of your scoop
If that were to be true, I believe it would be catastrophic for the British armed forces and any pretensions they might still have to global power projection.
airsound
should have got Bombardier to dust of the plans of the Belfast and put more modern engines on it!
(Perhaps I should add that I'm a great Belfast fan, having been the Last Flt Cdr Ops on 53.)
But, slightly more seriously - baby-spice - please do enlighten us as to the source of your scoop
Project cancelled, expect ministerial announcement sometime in July (prob 17th).
airsound
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that were to be true, I believe it would be catastrophic for the British armed forces and any pretensions they might still have to global power projection.
Yes they are doing a great job, as ever - but the Herc is too small, and too old (even the J). And the C-17 is too expensive, and even then not as capable in some significant areas as the A-400M will be.
And before anyone jumps down my throat with the fact that the A-400 has all sorts of ongoing development problems, could you stop and ask yourself what modern aircraft in development doesn't? I mean, it's not as if the the A-380, or the 787, or even Dave, is humming sweetly along towards a rosy service life with no drawbacks, is it?
airsound
And before anyone jumps down my throat with the fact that the A-400 has all sorts of ongoing development problems, could you stop and ask yourself what modern aircraft in development doesn't? I mean, it's not as if the the A-380, or the 787, or even Dave, is humming sweetly along towards a rosy service life with no drawbacks, is it?
airsound
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A400M is currently projected (by Airbus) to cost over 3/4 (per aircraft) of what Boeing is charging export customers for a C-17.
The difference is small, and disappearing at an alarming rate.
And it is not the engine, nor the software that is holding up the "first flight"... the documentation of the development of the software was screwed up, and is having to be re-done in order to gain regulatory clearance for flight.
The engine is running just fine in the C-130 test-bed aircraft... including test flights.
The big problem is the admission that the aircraft is overweight, and that the floor needs to be redesigned to meet payload weight/m3 specifications... which means more delay & cost.
The difference is small, and disappearing at an alarming rate.
And it is not the engine, nor the software that is holding up the "first flight"... the documentation of the development of the software was screwed up, and is having to be re-done in order to gain regulatory clearance for flight.
The engine is running just fine in the C-130 test-bed aircraft... including test flights.
The big problem is the admission that the aircraft is overweight, and that the floor needs to be redesigned to meet payload weight/m3 specifications... which means more delay & cost.
Thanks, Equivocator, for that response to the Green Knight. I agree with what you say, and would only add that GK’s statement
seems to be disproved by the 18 June statement of Europrop International technical director Karsten Muehlenfeld. He said that EPI only had a further 300h of ground tests to conduct ahead of the certification of its TP400-D6 turboprop. Six examples had completed more than 3,000h of testing, while a seventh had logged 35 airborne hours on a C-130 testbed. A further 500-600h of engine testing would lead to operational readiness.
The EPI consortium would deliver flight-standard full-authority digital engine control software for the A400M late June for ground testing, and negotiations would continue with Europe's EASA certification agency over permission to fly the A400M in advance of it completing all auditing tasks. "I don't think that anyone has any doubts that the software can fly," says Muehlenfeld.
So it seems clear that what we are waiting for is related to engines and not to airframes.
Finally, I was interested to note that the Green Knight hails from a “Western Co, USA”. Could that be a certain Seattle company?
airsound
it is not the engine, nor the software that is holding up the "first flight"
The EPI consortium would deliver flight-standard full-authority digital engine control software for the A400M late June for ground testing, and negotiations would continue with Europe's EASA certification agency over permission to fly the A400M in advance of it completing all auditing tasks. "I don't think that anyone has any doubts that the software can fly," says Muehlenfeld.
So it seems clear that what we are waiting for is related to engines and not to airframes.
Finally, I was interested to note that the Green Knight hails from a “Western Co, USA”. Could that be a certain Seattle company?
airsound
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Many a true word said in jest"
NURSE,
In a former life I was working as an undergraduate in the design office's of Short's in Belfast. Sometime in 1994 a group of gentlemen from an organisation called "EUROFLAG" (European Future Large Aircraft Group - latterly Airbus Military) came to visit and hoover up every scrap of info on the Belfast. Essentially, without the Belfast (the only large lifter ever built in europe) you wouldn't have the A400M as we now know it. Doesn't seemed to have helped them that much mind you......
In a former life I was working as an undergraduate in the design office's of Short's in Belfast. Sometime in 1994 a group of gentlemen from an organisation called "EUROFLAG" (European Future Large Aircraft Group - latterly Airbus Military) came to visit and hoover up every scrap of info on the Belfast. Essentially, without the Belfast (the only large lifter ever built in europe) you wouldn't have the A400M as we now know it. Doesn't seemed to have helped them that much mind you......
baby-spice
More important than all of these comparatively esoteric discussions - please tell us how you came by your bomb-shell of a statement
and do you stand by it?
Or are you just fishin? If so, you've caught me.....
airsound
Project cancelled, expect ministerial announcement sometime in July (prob 17th).
Or are you just fishin? If so, you've caught me.....
airsound
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, Airsound, I know some of you Brits know nothing about US geography, but Boeing has no operations in COLORADO!!!
[hint for the unaware... Co is the standard abbreviation for the US state of Colorado]
Nor have I ever worked for any company associated with them in any capacity.
As for the cost issue... the C-17 cost has gone up ~10% since I last compared the two a few months ago, and the €:$ exchange rate has shifted just a little in favor of the €, so the numbers are just a little further apart than before. That said, here are the most current data I could find:
A400M:
1 year ago:
Airlifter Comparisons - Airbus A400M - Airbus Military - EADS A400M - Aerospace Technology - CASR Background - Canadian American Strategic Review - military cargo aircraft - Airlift Capability Project - ACP Strategic - ACP Tactical - military aircraf
Now:
Op-Ed: The Case Against the A400M
C-17:
2010 Pentagon Spending Request | National Priorities Project
C-130J:
2010 Pentagon Spending Request | National Priorities Project
A-400M: current unit cost €145 million; EADS wants to raise this, possibly up to ~€180 million.
C-17: current unit cost €234.45 million (exchange rate 6/27/2009 Saturday .71570 EUR)
C-130J: current unit cost €64.2 million
Still a little way to go, but with no certainty that there won't be a further demand for a price increase in the 2 (or more) years before production begins.
A split buy of equal numbers of C-130 & C-17 would cost €298.66 million for 2 aircraft (1 of each), while 2 A-400M would cost at the absolute least €290 million, possibly as much as €360 million.
Also, the C-17/C-130J would be in production 2 years before the A400M... and the RAF is already experiencing problems with airlifter availability, aren't they?
[hint for the unaware... Co is the standard abbreviation for the US state of Colorado]
Nor have I ever worked for any company associated with them in any capacity.
As for the cost issue... the C-17 cost has gone up ~10% since I last compared the two a few months ago, and the €:$ exchange rate has shifted just a little in favor of the €, so the numbers are just a little further apart than before. That said, here are the most current data I could find:
A400M:
1 year ago:
Estimated unit cost was originally US$90M. The unit cost has since climbed to over US$156M (€100 million).
Now:
The current unit price is estimated at EUR 145 million. But EADS wants to renegotiate this price to reflect much higher than anticipated development costs. Some estimates predict an increase of at least thirty per cent in unit price.
C-17:
$327.9 million -- per unit cost
C-130J:
$89.8 million -- per unit cost
A-400M: current unit cost €145 million; EADS wants to raise this, possibly up to ~€180 million.
C-17: current unit cost €234.45 million (exchange rate 6/27/2009 Saturday .71570 EUR)
C-130J: current unit cost €64.2 million
Still a little way to go, but with no certainty that there won't be a further demand for a price increase in the 2 (or more) years before production begins.
A split buy of equal numbers of C-130 & C-17 would cost €298.66 million for 2 aircraft (1 of each), while 2 A-400M would cost at the absolute least €290 million, possibly as much as €360 million.
Also, the C-17/C-130J would be in production 2 years before the A400M... and the RAF is already experiencing problems with airlifter availability, aren't they?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revising software
A touch off-thread-ish perhaps, but in today's SeattlePi is a report that Wall Street analysts reckon that, as Boeing's software did not predict the recent damage to the 787's wing-body junction, the FAA may require their whole CADCAM kit to be re-proved - i.e., going by the TP700 delay (my interpretation, not Morgan Stanley's), 787 first flight may be delayed until December, or even into 2010, and the flight test process could possibly not meet the "accelerated schedule" originally planned ... 
(Mods, please feel free (as they say) to re-assign this post ...)
(Mods, please feel free (as they say) to re-assign this post ...)
Oops 
- apologies Green Knight. I (foolishly) assumed your 'Co' was the British English abbreviation for 'company' - and didn't think of the US English abbreviation for Colorado. I should have known better - the lovely Mrs Airsound comes from Ca.
As to all your costing figures - I might have to get back to you on those later....
airsound
from Gloucs, or even Glos (Gloucestershire)
- apologies Green Knight. I (foolishly) assumed your 'Co' was the British English abbreviation for 'company' - and didn't think of the US English abbreviation for Colorado. I should have known better - the lovely Mrs Airsound comes from Ca.As to all your costing figures - I might have to get back to you on those later....
airsound
from Gloucs, or even Glos (Gloucestershire)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There is, of course, an additional factor to add into that cost equation, and that is the additional cost of operating a third aircraft type.
Many moons ago the discussions around C130/A400M/C17 revolved, in part, about only being able to afford two types in service. In those days it was used as reason to explain why we didn't need/couldn't afford the C17 and why the A400M needed it's cruise speed performance etc.
Well, we now have the c17, and I don't think anyone thinks we are going to get rid of it, and in probability we'll end up with 2-3 more and it will form a core force for decades to come. Similarly we now have the C130J.
the question now being, with FRES fading into the distance, is there a justification for the A400M that makes it a necessity. If so, will it be able to do all the tasks the C130J does? If so, can we buy/lease more capacity to get through the time until it becomes available, then sell the C130Js? It would seem foolish to buy more.
If not, why not cancel the A400M and buy more C130J/C17s now, the savings from not having to operate a third logistic support and training system should make up any cost difference.
It just seems extraordinary that, in explaining why, year after year, we have retired so may FJ types, using the mantra over the additional savings of retiring a type over a squadron, we should even be contemplating adding another AT type.....
Many moons ago the discussions around C130/A400M/C17 revolved, in part, about only being able to afford two types in service. In those days it was used as reason to explain why we didn't need/couldn't afford the C17 and why the A400M needed it's cruise speed performance etc.
Well, we now have the c17, and I don't think anyone thinks we are going to get rid of it, and in probability we'll end up with 2-3 more and it will form a core force for decades to come. Similarly we now have the C130J.
the question now being, with FRES fading into the distance, is there a justification for the A400M that makes it a necessity. If so, will it be able to do all the tasks the C130J does? If so, can we buy/lease more capacity to get through the time until it becomes available, then sell the C130Js? It would seem foolish to buy more.
If not, why not cancel the A400M and buy more C130J/C17s now, the savings from not having to operate a third logistic support and training system should make up any cost difference.
It just seems extraordinary that, in explaining why, year after year, we have retired so may FJ types, using the mantra over the additional savings of retiring a type over a squadron, we should even be contemplating adding another AT type.....
Last edited by ORAC; 29th Jun 2009 at 21:26. Reason: sp
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I gotta couple of minutes, my mind's a lot faster than my fingers (hey! I was a controller not a pilot). if I make a typo - f8ck it, drive on!!..... 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... the question now being, with FRES fading into the distance, is there a justification for the A400M that makes it a necessity. If so, will it be able to do all the tasks the C130J does? If so, can we buy/lease more capacity to get through the time until it becomes available, then sell the C130Js? It would seem foolish to buy more. If not, why not cancel the A400M and buy more C130J/C17s now, the savings from not having to operate a third logistic support and training system should make up any cost difference.
The drawback to the C130 is that its cargo cabin is too small for the L.A.V. III/ Stryker and for many of the Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers already in use, at least by US armed forces. After a while, the British Army will probably want to operate some of these wheeled vehicles too, especially if the proposed FRES ( Were FRESes to be tracked ? ) set of vehicles remains cancelled.
The A400 and the C-17 are big enough for these vehicles, the C-130 isn't. The C-17 can also load a Main Battle Tank. The A400 is to small for that, even if current A400 problems are resolved.
An enlarged follow-on to the C-130 doesn't seem likely to happen. Boeing is shopping around a C-17B with more thrust, more flaps, and a third nosewheel. A C-17B might be able to match the A400's advertised slow flight and short field performance.
The USAF is going to get some C-27's. There probably will also be an improved V-22.
The next all new and big military transport American military transport project will probably be either a four engine tilt rotor or a big big helicopter, bigger than H-53K or MiL-26. Don't hold your breath waiting for one of those.
A worthwhile proposal for C130's and C17's is to fit some of them with electro optics pods and underwing weapons racks, while retaining cargo carrying ability. Maybe that is a good idea for the RAF also, mais non?
The drawback to the C130 is that its cargo cabin is too small for the L.A.V. III/ Stryker and for many of the Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers already in use, at least by US armed forces. After a while, the British Army will probably want to operate some of these wheeled vehicles too, especially if the proposed FRES ( Were FRESes to be tracked ? ) set of vehicles remains cancelled.
The A400 and the C-17 are big enough for these vehicles, the C-130 isn't. The C-17 can also load a Main Battle Tank. The A400 is to small for that, even if current A400 problems are resolved.
An enlarged follow-on to the C-130 doesn't seem likely to happen. Boeing is shopping around a C-17B with more thrust, more flaps, and a third nosewheel. A C-17B might be able to match the A400's advertised slow flight and short field performance.
The USAF is going to get some C-27's. There probably will also be an improved V-22.
The next all new and big military transport American military transport project will probably be either a four engine tilt rotor or a big big helicopter, bigger than H-53K or MiL-26. Don't hold your breath waiting for one of those.
A worthwhile proposal for C130's and C17's is to fit some of them with electro optics pods and underwing weapons racks, while retaining cargo carrying ability. Maybe that is a good idea for the RAF also, mais non?