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!!

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!

NurseYou 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

why so the RAF seem to be doing a great job with the Herc and the C17 and if it is true then a few more of may be ordered?

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

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.

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

"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......

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

baby-spice
 

2 posts since Apr 2008 - of which his 'bombshell' is the second. Baby-spice? Baby gravy, more like!

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?

GreenNight
 

I bed to differ with regard to Boeing & Co. I do believe that Jeppesen is a Boeing Company :E:ok:

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 ... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

(Mods, please feel free (as they say) to re-assign this post ...)

Oops :uhoh: - 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)

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.....

or maybe with the reviewed armed forces only 2 sqns of c130's and 1 of C17 will be required?

Bloody Hell.
ORAC can't spell if he don't C & P.:)

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!!..... ;);)

merlinxx...
Who or what is "Jeppesen", and where is it when its at home?

Can I ask why you would need to move a MBT by air?

Even if you could and wanted to, the logistics chain behind a MBT is massive and therefore it is uneconomical to move it this way as such. There are also plenty of papers out there which say the MBT in its role as an MBT is dead...

I am involved in a programme where I am trying to inform land guys why you can't really move a 30T AFV by air even though they have plucked the 30T figure from the air...find out what the vehicle needs to do, "design it" and see how much it weighs then work towards that, not start with a weight and go from there...

Regards

but the A400 may not have the short field capability projected it hasn't had any trials yet so far its just computer models ie projected not proven.

And if the rumours are to be believed the A400M will not have an initial Tac role or be allowed to work NSO TLZs:mad:

They are not rumours about the Tac role but not sure about the NSO work...the milestones do not allow this and neither did the C-130J, the C-17 or any new aircraft when they arrived.

Good morning.

I sincerely hope the A400 project runs out all right. Boeing and Lockheed need the competition.

Question: why doesn't A400 mgmt. publish some artwork showing a gunship version of the A400, or the A400 unloading [ conveniently sized ] combat vehicles in a melodramatic, wartime scene?

Not politique correctment goodthink to do so, Elmo suspects. Goodthinking EUlanders want the A400 to be used for humanitarian missions or civilized peacekeeping efforts. Actual war? Quel horreur ...

Weren't the Canadian tanks in Afghanistan brought in by air?

So does that mean no Tac role for the A400M? If not then why are we buying it?

I appreciate that previous aircraft types didn't have the ability to fulfil all roles when they arrived but I thought the A400M procurement process was meant to bypass the majority of endless, in-service trials.

Again, if not, how long are we going to have to wait for full mission, all-role, capability. We don't need it in 5 years, we need it now.

If the news is anything to go by today perhaps the A400M will join the nuclear deterrent, the carriers and most of JSF in the 'too expensive and not required bin'

:mad:

There are milestones for the Tac role but not on initial arrival.

The problem with getting the Tac clearances done by Airbus is that this is a 6-nation project with differing requirements/loads. The work share allows a basic clearance to be completed and this was agreed by the 6-nations but it does not include every load in every configuration; to expect Airbus to provide that would be overly optimistic and also very expensive and time consuming.

The procurement process was supposed to certify a civil aircraft and then apply a military delta to that civil certification. However, there have been problems because the delta is larger than expected because

1. We, the nations, didn't write the requirements explicitly enough, and,
2. Airbus mis-understood the complexity of aerial delivery operations and the risks that were entailed.

If it arrives, it will arrive, but not soon enough...

After working on the UK C17MBT trials, I was given this answer to the same question. As to it's accuracy I cannot vouch, however it seemed logical to me at the time.

The need to carry an MBT is not for initial deployment, but rather for the purpose which mostly everyone forgets the AT fleet do day , day out, the continual re-supply role.

Back on topic though;

The A400 is statistically important in other ways.
The J, although capable in many ways, cannot physically carry a lot of modern vehicles that the Army currently possess, or wish to possess, that much is agreed by virtually everyone.

Yes, the C17 can carry virtually all of these, but it was deemed preferrable on it's introduction that it would be used for hub and spoke operations.
If Albert is replaced by A400Ms, this hub and spoke can continue, hence keeping the "valuable" asset safer.

If, god forbid, we did lose another A/C in theatre, would it be financially better to lose an A400M load, or a C17 load? Please remember the MoD is no longer in charge of it's own procurement, it is politicians, statisticians and accountants.

So buy some AN-124's, then?!

Or Galaxy's!

The MoD was offered An124's some years ago with new cockpit, RR engines and 3 man flt deck. Turned them down. Not sure whether they were offered the An70.

Jeppeson company.
 

GK121 (post60)
merlinxx...
Who or what is "Jeppesen", and where is it when its at home?

It's only the company that researches, prints and publishes all the approach plates that the US airline, corporate and private pilots use. I believe most ICAO countries also use them. Boeing bought the company from Mr. J some years ago

Thanks for that... now I've got to figure out where they are... as I'd never heard of them before.

Hmmm... Google says the Colorado headquarters is in Centennial... only a little over 250 miles through the Rocky Mountains to the east of me.

No Jepp's= you're walking.

I make tea for a living and I have heard of them.....:eek:

SFFP - that's a blatant lie.........

What DON'T they do!

Hmmm, you have to wonder whether it will be EADS who might look for a way to walk away.....

EVIAN, France (AP) — The leaders of France and Britain pushed Monday for ambitious targets for tackling climate change and cracking down on uncooperative tax havens, ahead of upcoming meetings with other heads of state this week and in September.

The two leaders showed little sign of headway, however, on a stalled European military cargo plane project or defusing tensions over illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel from France to Britain...........

Neither leader said much about their talks on Europe's long-delayed and loss-making A400M military transport plane.

In a joint statement released later, the two leaders said they are "committed to finding a positive outcome for the renegotiation of the A400M program."

Airbus and parent company EADS, which are developing the aircraft, must "bear the consequences of the program delays and contribute to compensating for the resulting capability deficit," according to the statement.........

In my opinion the real point here is not whether one particular project is “doomed” but rather the wider fundamentals that underpin the procurement process and specifically the complex relationship and interdependencies that exist between government and industry – in this case the defence manufacturing sector.

1. Procurement
I’d assume that a basic military need must exist in all cases to allow the procurement process to commence, and I’d then imagine that an initial spec would get ‘pulled around’ by a whole host of people (hopefully SMEs) in the MoD with input from the relevant armed service(s), all of which should take place prior to any submissions to industry (RFI, RFP/ITT, etc).
What we know from past experience is that those competing interests rarely settle their differences at this stage and that these arguments and subsequent spec revisions continue long after any submissions to industry, and we also know this “disagreement process” is lengthened inexorably in the case of multi-nation projects, in part due to politics (more of which later). In other words I think it’s quite normal for that basic military need to have taken so long to become a firm design spec, and to have changed so much, that it becomes almost unrecognizable from that initial spec, with the result being that the end product suits no-one and costs many, many times as much as first envisaged (remember change = money).

2. Relationships and Interdependencies with Defence Manufacturing Sector
In the most extreme case we’ve now gone from a basic military need that has morphed into some kind of multi-national “white elephant” which no-one really knows what to with but, upon which, many thousands of jobs in a number of countries now depend. And that is the key dilemma for Government, to determine whether the most important factor is actually defence need or plain economics. All too often I believe Government prioritizes economics (in the widest possible sense!) against actual defence need, which means that any sensible defence based argument or viewpoint is automatically overridden by the threat to employment in Scottish shipyards or Hull or wherever.

A further complicating factor is the sheer size and scale of these contracts awarded, meaning that when things go wrong the government really has no recourse against those companies involved; witness the Nimrod MRA4 fiasco where the government has continued pumping money into a project that was grossly mismanaged, for fear of effectively bankrupting its major defence systems supplier!

Not sure if the above points make any sense, just my own thoughts in my capacity as both a taxpayer and firm believer in maintaining credible armed forces.

Regards, Nick.

Procurement
 

AndrewN

Goes a bit like this:

Before the beancounters will approve a project you have to go for initial funding before precise costs have been calculated. You effectively 'guess' to how much money you need....

In my department, our costs were deemed too expensive, so you bid for what you thought you could get (in my particular case we had only 40% of the budget we knew we needed.......)

No surprises then, when the actual budget went well over the initial costings!

Tail wagging dog.:ugh: