Just heard/seen the engine being run-up in the test-bed Herc. at Marshalls', seemed to be going on all day! Very distinctive "crackle" on the new engine/prop. combination.

EADS announces new A400M first flight delay
 

DATE:25/09/08
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
EADS has announced another, as yet unquantified, delay to the programme;
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ght-delay.html

A400M Transport Plane Faces New Delay

More indefinate delays.

A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers
 

Here's the latest in this saga, according to Flightglobal;
A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers
Looking at the extent of work that needs to be completed ahead of a first flight of the A400M and the technical/project risks involved, it's easy to understand why Airbus won't commit to a first flight date or a delivery plan. It sounds like the blame game is gathering momentum.

€20bn military aircraft programme under strain
 

Source: Engineering News;
?20bn military aircraft programme under strain

I told yer so!:cool:

Perhaps this thread should be re-titled "A400M engine - still doesn't work". Here's the latest news which is also confirmed in the aviation press;
EADS warns of delays to military aircraft - Telegraph . I think the Telegraph meant to say A330 rather than A380 :ugh:

Post 79 on 17th September;

It seems I was right to question what year they were referring to. This was always going to be a high risk project selecting an unproven propulsion system. I wonder if Airbus / the customer governments will now consider substituting CFM56s for the initial batch of aircraft and retrofit them later when/if they manage to sort out the problems with the TP400 propulsion system.

17 x C17 or 25 x A400M?

Which would you have in your inventory? Both options the same price.

re on the top bunk
 

17 x C17 or 25 x A400M?

Which would you have in your inventory? Both options the same price.


Not the same option at all really, except price wise.

I think the C17's are an exceptional & underrated machine, which the U.K. should have more of. Definitely.

We also need the next generation Tac /to strat transport.

All that is on the board is the A400m at the moment.

17 C17 or 25 A400M?
Niether!
What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop and equipped to keep our lads and ladettes safe during in-theatre arrival and departure. You can run a daily schedule with just two servicable, with surge capacity and enougth seats leftover for all to get their mid tour RnR.
And we do need this NOW, not in 2012 or 2015 or whenever the FSTA PFI expects to provide us with replacements for our 40 year old strat AT fleet.
Have we go the finance to do this? Probably not, as its all gone on the A400M moneypit already.:{
Oh, and we could do with a few more movers as well!

Why the obsession to fly directly from the UK into what is effectively a combat zone ?

Why not fly perfectly ordinary planes into a neighbouring country and then use military transports for the hop into Afghanistan ?

YES, there would be the extra operational costs of having a detachment in the transit country, but it would be offset by not having to rack up vast numbers of flying hours on rare transports.

.

Lets think about this.

1. Name a neighbouring country which is going to grant diplomatic clearance for this longterm activity without making itself become a target?
2. An operation like this would further drain the limited resources of movers having to be based in a neighbouring country to ensure the smooth flow of pax between the military transport & perfectly ordinary planes, whatever they are.

Personally, I would not want to get on one plane in UK, unload and stand around in a neighbouring country, waiting for my next lift to arrive before re-boarding and continuing my journey.

Maybe the Shorts Belfast could be rebuilt in it's original spec 4x jets and a Vee tailplane. Keep the spending at home in these fund tending times!!!!

Phil,

It is really the same, or similar argument to flight refuelling. It is easier to get planes from A to B in one hop rather than rely on several aircraft/hops.

A direct flight will do the point to point in 2-3 hrs less, and probably much more, than staging.

May I ask another question of you?

You plan a fortnights holiday in Orlando. Do you look for a direct flight from Gatwick or one from a regional airport to Schipol to Detroit to Orlando?

The direct flight is cheaper in costs too. Only one start-up and one climb on the one segment rather than 2.

"What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop"

How about we buy a few of BA's 744s that they're looking to offload; we did just that in the early '80s when they ditched the TriStar (partly as a result of a clerical error) for peanuts.

Would suit both players & we'd have a modern, reliable decent-sized Strategic transport.

Would look good on the CV too...

You are working off the basis that supplying troops is the priority in terms of defense strategy for the next 30 years.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but it is not. AT generally however is. The assumption we could be a rapidly deployable force with the introduction of FRES with 6 C-17 and 24 Herc J is a little farcical.

Having said that, defence is in prime territory for defense cuts, even if that means reducing our commitment in the Stan. Keeping woolies/Royal ban k of scotland/Long term Doleite Scum in existence is far more important in terms of votes to Labour than occupying a land a quater way around the globe ever would have been.

Helimarshall, Quatar have been doing it for years. As for whether the lads would like to do it that way, since when has that been factored in the equation?

The whole situation is very sad, both the RAF, RCAF and RAAF apears to have greatly under estimated their uplift requirements.

!965 I believe saw the RAF buy was it 60 C130K's and the RAAF buying 12 C130E's. If we presume that the RAF got the figure correct, how can today the MOD be happy with a few very tired K models, and the J models running life out on the mainplanes quicker thjan you can wink.

As I have said before thank goodness the RAAF did not fall for the A400M sales pitch.

An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate.

We the RAAF have fallen for the RAF trick, and not bought enough of the C17, so still we are short of uplift capacity, with no real short term fix for the problem.

Hope Kevin looks in his till and see if he has change for the fix of more C17's.

Caribou now out of service next year with no replacement, with every chance that the remaining C130H's will go too.

Things not looking good, and will be even worse if the Airbus fails to meet the need.

Regards to all for Christmas.

Col

A400M
 

"An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate"

If there is no current airframe then you have to design a new one, if there is no current engine that will fit the new airframe you have to design a new one.


The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.

In time the A400M will become the workhorse of the european defense force

I'm sorry, isn't that exactly the point? Didn't I read earlier in this very thread where Airbus is threatening to not build any more A400s unless the fixed-price part of the contract is removed so it can charge more?