A400 Doomed?
 

Christopher Booker, an occasionally tinfoil-wearing Sunday Torygraph contributor, suggests that the A400 programme is 'on the brink of collapse' here: 'Save the planet' rhetoric soars to crazy new heights - Telegraph (scroll down past the global warming stuff) and that therefore our armed forces 'will soon be incapable of fighting overseas' because C-130 goes out of service in 2012.

Have the RAF been told this? :\

Looks like more C-17's will be ordered , and more C-130 J's IF it does get cancelled ,:ugh:

I do not think that it will be cancelled due to the catastrophic effect that it would have on EADS finances.

True. Still wonder if anyone will jump ship, however. Binning its A400M order would not have a particularly high financial or job risk to UK Plc as it would to the French or Germans. Most of the UK companies involved would still be working on it irrespective of it being ordered just as it hasn't after Italy decided not to buy it. The UK's need to be involved in the europlane moreorless ended the day BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus. Other than the euroland politics involved, is it what the RAF really wants? Would they be content with more C-130Js and C-17s instead or is the A400M that important to the RAF?

Surely it's the army that would be most affected by the cancellation, in terms of yet another capability gap? Was not one of the major incentives behind the A400 the larger freight bay to take the latest generation of vehicles with their greater mass and size? Whilst more C130Js would give greater tonnage capacity, would that answer the perceived requirement?

Sorry for calling you Shirley............

Chaps, this has been done to death on the myriad of other A400 threads on here...

Sorry Stopstart, but we are all chatting about it now, so come on, let us crack on.... You don't have to read it if you don't want to!

My son is on contract with Airbus in Seville working on the A400, they are all on notice of termination and working from month to month, entirely possible project going belly up!

What effect that will have on EADS, MOD or anyone else is anybodies guess.

In that case :)....

In answer to the earlier question about capability gaps then - no there won't be one. Ideally this thing goes down the tubes asap, we can stop mincing about and go get more Js and C17s. C17s can move the big stuff and we can carry on with the other stuff.

The army's FRES project for big, wide etc vehicles is more of a terminal basket case than the A400 anyway so is frankly irrelevant.

Though the FRES programme has ballooned both in cost, and weight, so perhaps there won't be many of them, and those we do procure will be too large/heavy to fit in a standard A400? Have to hope that the Antonovs soldier on for a while, and that we stay on the same side as Ivan...

I heard through T bar gossip that Lockheed had proposed a widebodied C130 (a fat fat albert, or obese albert?). Other than the 1980's proposal, any update on newer evolutions?

In April 08 EADS said 'this summer'

Then in September EADS said: first flight is postponed beyond the end of this year, but the impact on the delivery schedule remains unclear.

The “unavailability” of the 10,000shp Europrop TP400-D6, the most powerful turboprop engine developed by the West, is blamed for the new delay.

The program is still waiting for the flying test bed – a C-130 modified by Marshall Airspace with one TP400-D6 under-wing – to get off the ground. That test campaign “should start in the coming weeks”,

OK, it flew on 17 Dec 08, then what?

Booker probably cribbed his article from the Economist - 8 Apr 09:

Airbus's troubled military transport | Heavy going | The Economist

The TP400 software is being used as the fall guy. IT NOW WORKS!!

Whilst there might be other issues with the A400M, from what I was told at ARSAG last week, things are nothing like as bad as have been portrayed.

I hasten to emphasise, that's what I was told...

Now, which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?

And don't forget the French. Can you imagine them settling for a non-European future airlifter?

Personally I blame the A380 and A350 programmes for diverting engineering design resources away from the A400M.....

Just to keep you on your toes Beags...;)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...eing-c-17.html

That'll be the C130J there BEags :ok:

None without infringing the terms of the AirTanker contract if informed voices are to be beleived.

Which would be a bit of a shame - the FSTA is not proposed for helicopter AAR.

Whereas, from the brief I had - and judging by the way the USMC are currently using the KC-130J in theatre, there isn't much it can't do. Particularly in respect of FARP operations; also Harvest Hawk will soon be turning the bad guys into unwholesome hamburger......:ok:

Now remind me, how many external hardpoints do the UK's 130Js have which are wired and plumbed for AAR........:confused:

Wow Beag's you're using logic at a point when you usually shoot from the visceral soft underbelly. C'mon, you know you want to.

Template: The A400 would have been a world beater if not for the Yank________

Hi Westie,

No, credit where credit is due - your USMC chums know what they're doing with the KC-130J. Whereas the version that the RAF has is....well, 'less capable'. Not by design, but by stupid procurement.

The A400M will eventually be a good aeroplane - but the political wrangling and bitch-fighting will be a thing of interest to behold!

By the way, I didn't even get threatened with a single 'latex glove' during my recent trip Stateside; contrary to alarmist reports, the natives were most friendly!

But you can keep Las Vegas.......:yuk:

I guess one of the casino's took you to the cleaners.

Not me - I didn't even gamble a quarter in a slot! Not that you can these days though - it's all sickeningly electronic with beeps and bloops instead of the sound of rattling coins.

The A400M chap at the conference seemed to have a pretty quiet time.....:bored: Almost as quiet as the rather lack lustre KC-767 folks did...:rolleyes: Although they did at least have the prettiest girls..:ok:

I do believe that the UK C130Js are plumbed and wired for two outboard AAR pods. Never happen though.

An ideal scenario however would be the RAF buying, leasing, whatever say about 5 US spec Js that could perhaps come fitted for AAR...... Unfortunately that would require the RAF to be able to see past the ends of their noses....

There are of course other "slots" that take $20, $50 and $100 bills in certain Las Vegas establishments that are far better value for money :E

No good for GPC though :=

Unfortunately those types of slots require computing a PCOD.

Diversion of engineering resources ...
 

Beagle, while deferring to your much greater and more recent experience than mine, I strongly feel that the need to "divert engineering resources" was due to decisions (later regretted) taken under the disastrous regime of one politically skilled but industrially inexperienced gentleman, highly compensated on his accelerated retirement, from which Airbus is still recovering. If - and it's a Big IF - things had gone to the usual plan, the A400 would have occupied engineers' minds after the A380 moved into service, to be followed by the A350. But under Mr. F's rule, the unwise decision was taken to retain the original Airbus wide-body fuselage cross-section, which had a Zinc Zeppelin reception from potential customers, ILFC in the forefront. Whence the collision of two programmes, which Airbus had avoided until then, and apparently less than perfect integration of the CASA operation.
You're right, things are being sorted out, both organisationally and on the engineering side, but it's clearly a long haul to recover from inexperience and possibly lack of ability to cooperate with different nationalities' characteristics at the "Top".
Like you, I look forward to hearing that things are getting sorted, and that the enforced delays will be shorter than the pessimists think - perhaps the A400 will actually reach the places where it's needed before our forces finish their work in Afghanistan ... Any penalties could possibly be recovered from what Mr. F was paid on leaving - and which Paris is trying to prise out of him (like the ex-Top Man at RBS in UK).
Incidentally, I noticed an odd remark by Mr. Enders recently, that the A380 engineering virtual mock-up was suffering from "problems with gravity" - could it be that the cable looms are straight lines on the computer screens, but the real life "dangle effect" is (was?) not allowed for?. Bright young engineers might not realise that electricity grid and telephone wires don't go straight from pole/pylon to pole. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

From Aviation International News

Crunch time next week for A400M lifter

By: Chris Pocock and Ian Sheppard
June 14, 2009

Defense ministers from the seven A400M partner nations are heading for Seville next week for a crucial meeting with the EADS and Airbus leadership. French Defense Minister Herve Morin urged the airframer to be “transparent and precise” about the extent of delays to the troubled European airlifter.

Meanwhile, at a meeting here in Paris last Thursday, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that a final decision on whether or how to proceed with the troubled European airlifter program would be delayed a further six months.

Speaking to journalists here last Saturday, EADS CEO Louis Gallois expressed confidence that the aircraft would fly “around the end of the year.” By failing to achieve that milestone by April 1, Airbus Military is technically in default of the contract, and liable for its cancellation and the return of the ?5.7 billion already provided by the governments in advance payments.

Gallois said that Airbus had already spent that money, and is now spending a further ?100 million each month on the program. “We have completely reorganized the program...and discussions are constructive on technical matters, delivery schedule, and the contract. We are proposing some amendments,” he said.

Referring to recent reports that the UK was ready to pull out of the program, Gallois said that the British had some specific requests. “We will see if we can accommodate them,” he said.

The UK had just appointed a new defense secretary, Bob Ainsworth, who will attend the meeting next week. An informed source told AIN that, in fact, the UK is still anxious to proceed with the acquisition.

Gallois noted that Spain had already expressed its continued support for the program. Now, he added, “We need at least France and Germany to agree.” Those two countries account for 110 of the 180 aircraft ordered by the partner nations.

Europe postpones A400M decision 1 month
Reuters, Monday June 22 2009

SEVILLE, Spain, June 22 (Reuters) - European nations have agreed to postpone their decision on the delayed A400M troop transporter by a further month, Spain's junior defence minister Constantino Mendez said on Monday.

The current three-month moratorium on Europe's biggest defence project was due to expire at the end of this month and prevents either customers or Airbus from taking drastic action over the project.

"The ministers' decision is to prolong the moratorium one more month in order to establish the terms of the negotiation," Mendez said after a meeting of the European nations involved in the plane project.

"Once the terms of the negotiation have been established, we are going to enter into a final period which will be called the period of renegotiation of the contract."

Europe's flagship 20 billion euro ($28 billion) defence programme is already more than three years late. Britain is pushing for financial concessions on the project.

Britain still wants to commit to the delayed A400M project but still has to make a lot of progress with Airbus to save the project, a minister said on Monday.

Asked after the meeting whether Britain was still committed to the A400M, British defence procurement minister Quentin Davies said: "We will be if we can be, but we need to make a very great deal of progress with (Airbus) industry in order to save this project."

UK Pushes for Concessions on Aircraft Project

How much of the delays are politically inspired and not Technical problems. It is one of the huge problems that Multi-National Programmes generate!
If Airbus was an Independant company would A400M be in service already and how many more delays will there be caused by changes of government in the different partner countires wanting to re-negioate the contract to fit their needs not the needs of their airforces?

I guess that takes the decision into the MP's Summer Holidays - which means nothing until Sep 09??:confused:

It is late, overweight, over budget and hasn't flown yet. There is no way that we aren't going to buy it!

Is that the same Christopher Booker who wrote 'the seven basic plots'? I'd put that one down as an 'overcoming the monster'...

I would bet "Beagles" Pension that it t'aint going to happen........

Call me old fashioned, but didn't we go through all this bi***ing and moaning 10 years ago when the 'J' was the subject of ridicule?

Good to see that we haven't learned from the past.....

Software standards ...
 

For some reason, the team at Europrop says it didn't know that their engine had to meet military certification requirements rather than civil. Although the engine seems to be meeting performance goals - even (nearly) weight - the software (or the paperwork accompanying it) needs to be re-written in a form the civil authorities will accept. And that software is said to be even more complicated than what's in an A380 ...
Although destined for military applications, the aircraft will be certificated to full civil standards (why ?).
I type all this with a big "It says here" bubble over my head, of course, but who am I (or anybody outside the organisation(s) concerned to talk ???
:8
Generic slamming of Airbus Military is just an extension of the old, old "Airbus bad, Boeing good" mantra, which got nobody anywhere - and speaking of the "B" company, worrabaht the latest drama for the 787 then ???

Jig Peter
 

Assuming that the military version (A400M) turns out to be a good aircraft then the stated intention of Airbus is to offer a civil version (A400C) to civil operators.

Presumably the same ones that operate C130s and Freight versions of the Boeing 747.




Aaron O'Dickydido

Because the way the certification was agreed was the aircraft would achieve a full civil certification and then a military delta would be applied. This was supposed to be quicker than doing a full military clearance as Airbus had experience of dealing with EASA.

However, I know from personal experience, that it was almost getting to the stage in the avionics and human factors certification panels that the delta was getting so large, it would be easier to go for a military certification and then certify the civil delta.

Regards

Bloomberg: Britain Signals It May Not Pay EADS for Cost Overruns on A400M

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. signaled it’s reluctant to pay for cost overruns on the A400M military transport plane, saying talks with the European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co. and other nations are in a “difficult” stage.

“This situation is very difficult and we want to be co- operative” with EADS, junior defense minister Quentin Davies, who has responsibility for equipment procurement, said in an interview in London. “But that absolutely cannot be at the expense of our armed forces and the British taxpayer.”

.........“My mind is open,” Davies said. “I would like to find a way of this project being saved but it can’t be at the expense of the taxpayer and the armed forces and we have certain requirements that must be met. Our position is absolutely clear. Our constraints are absolute.” .......

“The U.K. is signaling that it is not willing to make a cash contribution to the overrun,” said Nick Cunningham, an analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd. “It also sounds like the U.K. won’t compromise on the specifications. EADS may be left with the possibility it has to finish the project at great cost. There still may be further overruns and problems.” .........

Airboos have been telling us for a while how great the A400M is going to be. Unfortunately it is overcost, overweight and unlikely to deliver the capabilty that we need right now even if we hang around for 5 years+ So, as wonderful as it might have been, fundamentally it is not. More C130Js and C17s would be the low risk option; however, I don't suppose the 'library educated' union convener from Coventry would have the first clue about what represents real value for the UK armed forces or the UK taxpayer.

Rant over

Project cancelled, expect ministerial announcement sometime in July (prob 17th).