# Long time coming: A400M proceeds towards first flight



## 404SqnAVSTeach (17 Oct 2007)

Modern military aircraft programmes can be long and protracted affairs; requirements change, budgets spiral, months stretch into years and years into decades. Add international partners into the mix and the potential for overruns, delays and even cancellations increases to such a degree that the very future of the project can be put in jeopardy.

The history books are littered with convoluted and drawn-out procurement programmes, but few have been as meandering and prolonged as that of the Airbus Military A400M medium-lift transport aircraft.

Nearly 30 years since it was first conceived by the British, French and German governments as a replacement for their Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules and Transall C-160 transport aircraft, the A400M has recently successfully completed all of its pre-flight contractual milestones and is finally gearing up for its first flight, which is now set for the third quarter of 2008.

With the exception of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft, today's fleet of military airlifters are nearing the end of their service lives and are struggling in today's operational climate in terms of increasing payload, volume, speed and range requirements.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the air forces of Western Europe, where cuts in national defence budgets and pressures imposed on them by other priorities have meant that military transport capability and capacity has fallen below the levels needed to conduct many of the expeditionary-type operations required by today's military planners.

Of the two types of transport aircraft currently in service with most European states, the C-130 and the C-160, only the C-130 is still in production (in the C-130J variant), but its 50-year-old design makes it unsuitable for the transportation of much of today's hardware, which has grown in size throughout the aircraft's life. Although a great deal of contemporary equipment remains within the C-130's load limits, the relatively narrow fit of its cargo hold means that the Hercules will often 'bulk out' before it 'weighs out'.

The C-17, by contrast, is a modern and highly capable platform, but its high price-tag and lifecycle costs make it prohibitively expensive for all but a few of Europe's larger air forces.

This need to replace its ageing transport fleets with a capable and affordable platform was recognised by Europe and NATO in the early 1980s, when it was referred to as the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) and Lockheed Martin was involved for a time. An Outline European Staff Target for a Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was produced and conceptual work undertaken by the European FLA Group (Euroflag) consortium, comprising Aerospatiale, Alenia, British Aerospace, CASA and Daimler Benz Aerospace Airbus. This work eventually resulted in the European Staff Requirement (ESR) for the joint development of a four-turbofan, medium-lift transport aircraft to fulfil Europe's military lift requirements into the 21st century.

Based on this ESR, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the UK issued a request for proposals (RFP) in September 1997, and it was in response to this RFP that Airbus Military was formed in January 1999 to offer the A400M as a contender to fulfil Europe's airlift requirement.

After Italy's withdrawal from Airbus Military in October 2001, Airbus and OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Coop�ration en mati�re d'ARmement), the European defence procurement agency, signed a contract for the development and production of 180 aircraft in May 2003.

Then, in 2005, South Africa and Malaysia joined the programme, ordering eight and four aircraft respectively. In the same year, Chile signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Airbus to purchase three aircraft. Since signing the MoU, however, Chile has deferred its decision on military airlift and is no longer considered to be a customer by Airbus.

Nevertheless, to date, orders for 192 A400Ms have been confirmed, with the last delivery scheduled to take place in 2021. Support activity for the A400M will go on well beyond that, according to Airbus, but full production past that date would depend upon further sales. Typically, such a programme could last up to 40 years.

This baseline number of aircraft is assured as, according to Airbus Military spokesperson Alasdair Reynolds, "the 'commercial approach' under which the A400M contract was drawn up precludes a reduction in the number of orders by any contracting party".

"Not only is the issue of national work-share a consideration, but the fixed-price, fixed-term single contract would mean that a reduction in the number of aircraft by one party would mean that the defaulter would simply end up paying the same amount for fewer aircraft."

Work on the A400M is distributed among eight of the nine customer countries (only Luxembourg is not participating in the workshare scheme). With the programme at such an advanced stage, Reynolds has confirmed to Jane's that the "window of opportunity" for workshare, beyond which the programme timetable would be adversely affected, has passed, and that there are no further opportunities for industrial participation.
821 of 4,007 words
© 2007 Jane's Information Group

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/idr/idr071003_1_n.shtml


----------



## MechEng (17 Oct 2007)

Now that Airbus has started deliveries of the A380 and are starting to ramp up production, Airbus will finally have additional resources available to get the A400 off the ground and out the door.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (17 Oct 2007)

Canada hasn't purchased the J-Herc yet.  If Airbus speeds things up, they might be able to put a bid in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Oct 2007)

You can have the airplane shortly, the engines might take a little longer.......


----------



## Genetk44 (17 Oct 2007)

From Reuters News yesterday...with all the usual caveats about fair-dealing etc, etc, etc,

Reuters News 10/16/2007
Authors: Tim Hepher and Benoit Van Overstraeten
(C) Reuters Limited 2007.

PARIS, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Airbus is facing a delay of at least six
months and possibly up to a year in deliveries of its A400M military
airlifter, in the latest blow to the European planemaker as it
rebounds from delays to its A380 passenger jet.

A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday that
deliveries of the heavylifter, developed for seven European NATO
nations at a cost of 20 billion euros, would be pushed back at least
six months past the target date of October 2009.

Checks carried out for Airbus parent EADS have also identified risks
that the deliveries could slide back a further six months for a total
a delay of up to one year, the source said.

Another source close to the matter said EADS was poised to give the
exact scope of the delays affecting the A400M soon.

"EADS may release tonight or tomorrow a statement on the A400M to
specify the delay on the aircraft's delivery," the source told
Reuters.

EADS declined to comment on the contents of its findings, but a
spokesman for the aerospace group in Germany confirmed it would issue
a statement concerning the A400M on Wednesday.

The A400M is Europe's largest military project. Although far less in
the public eye than Airbus's mammoth A380 superjumbo, it was developed
at almost twice the A380's cost and any delays would trigger automatic
penalties built into the contract.

Military planners have been bracing for setbacks for months after
Airbus Military, the planemaker's defence subsidiary, announced a
three-month delay in its first flight due in 2008.

France is due to take the first turbo-prop A400M aircraft.

Reuters reported earlier this month that the internal target date for
the first flight had slipped back to May 2008 from the first quarter.

Tom Williams, executive vice-president for programmes at Airbus, said
on Monday the aircraft's maiden flight was now considered likely to
slip back another two months until July or beyond, making it difficult
to deliver the plane in 2009.

The first flight was originally scheduled for January 2008.

The fresh delay cast a shadow over celebrations for the first delivery
of the double-decker A380 to Singapore Airlines on Monday after that
aircraft was delayed by up to two years. But reported problems have
not reached the scale of the A380's woes.

Accused of mishandling a trio of announcements over the A380 delays in
the past two years, EADS hopes to limit damage from the A400M delays
by quickly announcing the results of an audit.

EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois warned in August the deliveries
could be delayed.

The delays could result in further financial provisions.

Aircraft makers generally get paid on delivery, making that milestone
the most important for financial performance.

The A400M was conceived as Europe's answer to the ageing Lockheed
C-130 Hercules, a military workhorse built to slip troops and
equipment into the world's most rugged hotspots.

Management of a consortium including France's Snecma and Rolls-Royce
has been revamped to fix problems on the A400M's propellor engine,
which features the longest propellor blades ever designed.

Problems have also emerged with development software for computer
systems that control the engines, known as FADEC.

The sale of 180 A400M's to a block of seven European nations in 2003
was the continent's biggest ever single arms order.

The seven launch customers are France, Germany, Spain, Britain,
Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey.

Exports to South Africa and Malaysia brought the total of aircraft
sold to 192, but a sale to Chile was cancelled.

(Additional reporting by Dominique Vidalon, editing by Phil Berlowitz


----------



## Genetk44 (17 Oct 2007)

More up to date info here...seems the engines could really be the problem  I mentioned in the C-130J thread

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/17/business/EU-FIN-France-EADS-Plane-Delays.php


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2007)

Heh,.... while the engines might be a problem, the Aircraft itself will make a dandy paperweight.

Until Airbus can put our a series of A400s, I will consider it no better than "vaporware"


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Oct 2007)

I will probably see the A400 come out when my first grandchild is born, wich could be a while because I don't even have kids yet  ;D


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2007)

One of the problems is that the aircraft is built by a consortium of many companies that are themselves operating out of many countries.  I consider this to be a project managed by consensus.... and you can't build anything by consensus....


----------



## Spencer100 (17 Oct 2007)

I guess they should have gone with the P&WC engines, but if they had picked the Canadian engine we would have been a customer on the wait list too.  I do remember something about Cretien pitching it to the French PM.


----------



## Genetk44 (17 Oct 2007)

P&W gave EADS a proposal for the engine but the Europeans wanted no part of an "American" company  ;D


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2007)

Most of the European engine manufacturers have been involved in the development of the engines.  Construction by consensus is hard at the best of times.... 

WRT P&W... why would they invite em in - expertise and all?
.... Neither Canada nor the US have signed up for the darned plane


----------



## TCBF (17 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Most of the European engine manufacturers have been involved in the development of the engines.  Construction by consensus is hard at the best of times....
> 
> WRT P&W... why would they invite em in - expertise and all?
> .... Neither Canada nor the US have signed up for the darned plane



- Truly, pride cometh before the fall.  But, those Euro companies mostly have their ownership spread all over the map - there is no way they can 'stupid' themselves into bankrupcy.  They just have to increase the flow of member countries tax dollars into the corporate coffers.  I can't wait to see the final 'true' cost of each aircraft.


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2007)

Creative bookkeeping 101 will make that task next near impossible.
The Govts will bail ... and bail again.


----------



## MechEng (17 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> One of the problems is that the aircraft is built by a consortium of many companies that are themselves operating out of many countries.  I consider this to be a project managed by consensus.... and you can't build anything by consensus....



Airbus has been making aircraft successfully for 30 years by consensus. So successful that Airbus is the largest aircraft maker in the world.  And even though Airbus builds by consensus which at times is very inefficient they have found a way to make it work.

BTW Boeing's 787 is being build buy a consensus of companies from many countries.

My understanding is that the delays for the A400 are for similar reasons that the A380 is delayed.  Some parts were designed using Catia 4 and some with Catia 5.  Those who know CAD programs know that Catia 5 is significantly different from Catia 4 and the models are not interchangeable. Airbus used a transition software to convert  between the two versions but the conversion software was less perfect than anticipated and has caused some design miscues.  With the A380 these problems were not even caught untill they started to build airplanes. And it caused an 18 month delay.

Airbus when they discovered the problem with the A380 stopped development of the A400 to work out the problems.   That is why we are seeing a possible 6 month delay with the A400.

As for the engines I too have heard rumors but for now it's just speculation.


----------



## MechEng (17 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Truly, pride cometh before the fall.  But, those Euro companies mostly have their ownership spread all over the map - there is no way they can 'stupid' themselves into bankrupcy.  They just have to increase the flow of member countries tax dollars into the corporate coffers.  I can't wait to see the final 'true' cost of each aircraft.



Airbus is a private company.  And does not get money from European governments.  However European governments have given airbus LOAN guarantees just like what the Canadian government has done with Bombardier.

European governments have entered into risk sharing agreements with some of Airbuses projects.  But nothing of this has ever come to fruition because Airbus has yet to have a failed project in 30 years.  And based on recent sales of the A380 it doesn't look like Airbus will have an troubles in the near future.


----------



## TCBF (17 Oct 2007)

MechEng said:
			
		

> Airbus is a private company.  And does not get money from European governments.  However European governments have given airbus LOAN guarantees just like what the Canadian government has done with Bombardier.
> 
> European governments have entered into risk sharing agreements with some of Airbuses projects.  But nothing of this has ever come to fruition because Airbus has yet to have a failed project in 30 years.  And based on recent sales of the A380 it doesn't look like Airbus will have an troubles in the near future.



- Time will tell.  Myself, I think they are in over their heads


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2007)

All I can say to Airbus is....

Bonne Chance!


----------



## Genetk44 (17 Oct 2007)

Geo...I'm not sure if Airbus asked P&W for an engine proposal or if it was P&W  that came forward with the proposal. I'll ask my buddies at P&W this weekend when I see them.  I was told however, that the existing Euro companies that are presently involved with the engine development/production are/were quite far behind in the type of turbo-prop engine development and manufactureing skills that P&W has. I was surprised at that and mentioned the EADS ATR commercial aircraft ....P&W engines ;D , Fokker Turbo props....Rolls Royce Dart engines(1950s tech) and....P&W engines ;Da



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Most of the European engine manufacturers have been involved in the development of the engines.  Construction by consensus is hard at the best of times....
> 
> WRT P&W... why would they invite em in - expertise and all?
> .... Neither Canada nor the US have signed up for the darned plane


----------



## MechEng (17 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Time will tell.  Myself, I think they are in over their heads



Well I don't think so.  There is a huge demand for military transports and cargo lift right now all over the world.  Nobody is really showing any more genuine interest in the expensive C-17 and production will be stopped in a few years.  Who else is there to compete with Airbus?  Is there another military lift aircraft that is currently being designed right now?

I'm not some Airbus cheerleader.  Airbus has done a lot of stupid things. But many people on here seem to heavily underestimate the resources that Airbus has.  It's seems as if many people on this forum despise Airbus.


----------



## MechEng (17 Oct 2007)

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> Geo...I'm not sure if Airbus asked P&W for an engine proposal or if it was P&W  that came forward with the proposal. I'll ask my buddies at P&W this weekend when I see them.  I was told however, that the existing Euro companies that are presently involved with the engine development/production are/were quite far behind in the type of turbo-prop engine development and manufactureing skills that P&W has. I was surprised at that and mentioned the EADS ATR commercial aircraft ....P&W engines ;D , Fokker Turbo props....Rolls Royce Dart engines(1950s tech) and....P&W engines ;Da



I'm not extreamly familiar with european turboprop tech.  But the engines on the C-130J and C-27 are Rolls Royce.


----------



## TCBF (17 Oct 2007)

MechEng said:
			
		

> Well I don't think so.  There is a huge demand for military transports and cargo lift right now all over the world.  Nobody is really showing any more genuine interest in the expensive C-17 and production will be stopped in a few years.  Who else is there to compete with Airbus?  Is there another military lift aircraft that is currently being designed right now?
> 
> I'm not some Airbus cheerleader.  Airbus has done a lot of stupid things. But many people on here seem to heavily underestimate the resources that Airbus has.  It's seems as if many people on this forum despise Airbus.



- Fair comment.  

- Q1. Why do/would we dislike Airbus from a social perspective?  Is this an afterglow from the 'Airbus Scandal' of the eighties, or a general snub towards anything European?

- Q2. If they wanted turboprops, why not ask the Russians?


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Oct 2007)

A lot of these things are covered at this topic:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/53631/post-619922.html#msg619922

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100 (17 Oct 2007)

MechEng said:
			
		

> I'm not extreamly familiar with european turboprop tech.  But the engines on the C-130J and C-27 are Rolls Royce.



The brand name on the engine is RR but it is American.  RR purchased Allison Engine (General Motors Div.) for Turbo props.   I think still built in Indy.


----------



## Genetk44 (18 Oct 2007)

MechEng said:
			
		

> I'm not extreamly familiar with european turboprop tech.  But the engines on the C-130J and C-27 are Rolls Royce.



You are partially correct MechEng....Rolls Royce is the name...but the engines are Allison Engines hence the designation for them as the model AE 2100D3 , designed and produced in the US.


----------



## ironduke57 (18 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> ...
> - Q2. If they wanted turboprops, why not ask the Russians?



We originally favored the An-70, but well politics.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------

