# A400M Rollout



## tomahawk6

Nice looking bird. 






More pic's here.
http://www.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/EADS/20080626_eads_a400m_roll-out.html


----------



## GAP

Love those props.....they have that angry "gimme some air" look.... ;D


----------



## Sheerin

Nice looking plane... 
How far behind schedule are they?


----------



## tomahawk6

Deliveries wont begin until 2010.


----------



## danchapps

I'm just curious, but why do the props seem like they are reversed? The one set looks like they rotate clockwise, why the next set looks like they go counter. Is this for more forward power? Or just because someone thought they'd look cool?


----------



## karl28

Should be interesting to see how the planes operate once they start entering service .


----------



## evil drunken-fool

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I'm just curious, but why do the props seem like they are reversed? The one set looks like they rotate clockwise, why the next set looks like they go counter. Is this for more forward power? Or just because someone thought they'd look cool?




The pairs rotate in opposite directions, not the sets.  It's all about aerodynamic efficiency and getting the most out the props, there is always a reason behind something.  But hey, it looks cool too if you ask me.

Here is a link to a press release by airbus about the props.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html


----------



## Haletown

It will look a lot nicer when it actually flies.  Be nicer when the model has a few hundred thousand hours of OPS use to verify the real costs and maintenance realities, as compared to the ILS models.


The "one size fits all" approach, rather than use mission fitted aircraft ( C130 + C17) remains to be proven in the market.

Time will tell


----------



## Haletown

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> The pairs rotate in opposite directions, not the sets.  It's all about aerodynamic efficiency and getting the most out the props, there is always a reason behind something.  But hey, it looks cool too if you ask me.
> 
> Here is a link to a press release by airbus about the props.
> 
> http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html



I think it has something to do with countering rotational gyro effect in a two engine out on the same side problem.


----------



## evil drunken-fool

Yeah, now you are getting into the actual technical side of things.  Obviously you get a cancellation of the force by creating two equal and opposite forces.  Thank you sir Issac Newton!


----------



## lone bugler

what are they estimating the price tag to be on one of these beauts?


----------



## Haletown

don't think anyone knows the current price because they haven't finished development & associated costs.  The unit price will reflect the amortized Program costs

Also have to figure if you are pricing the aircraft or the Life Cycle costs.

I read an earlier this year suggesting the per aircraft price, if you walked into EADS and bought one, without Life Cycle Support, would be $120 million.

I think I still have the pdf on the home PC.


----------



## Haletown

from the EADS A400M website

  "A fleet of 50 A400M airlifters represents an acquisition cost of 5bn-Euros "

So that's 100 million Euros per unit, or converted is $Cdn 159 million per aircraft.

Seems pricey.


----------



## danchapps

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> The pairs rotate in opposite directions, not the sets.  It's all about aerodynamic efficiency and getting the most out the props, there is always a reason behind something.  But hey, it looks cool too if you ask me.



My mistake with the terminology, I meant pair as opposed to sets. I knew there was a reason, just wasn't sure why. The aircraft does look nice, but then again we've been waiting to see this beastie for how long now? Thanks for the input, I'm going to read the link now to further my knowledge.


----------



## MedTechStudent

Frightfully ugly isn't she?   ;D


----------



## geo

Beautiful "ugly bird".....

Has she been cleared for take off OR is she still limited to taxiing @ the end of a tow bar


----------



## Haletown

Just the tow bar for now.

The engines are not yet tested/certified. The C130 testbed aircraft has yet to fly  - they are still in static ground tests with the plane anchored to the ramp.


----------



## mover1

Looks like the fat little brother of the C 141 with props


----------



## Globesmasher

Wow!
I can't believe that it is actually out and off the drawing board.
Good for EADS.

I hope this thing now works as advertized/designed/intended ................
Looks cool.


----------



## Haletown

it does have a passing resemblance in place to a fat 141  . . .

here's the roll-out party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3eLNxKsE1E&feature=related


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... she behaves real nice on the tow bar 
wonder if the tug can pull it fast enough for it to "lift off" like a glider >


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Anyone know if they got the engine issues resolved?

My recollection was that was huge contributor to the delays.....


Merci, Matthew.


----------



## Haletown

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Anyone know if they got the engine issues resolved?
> 
> My recollection was that was huge contributor to the delays.....
> 
> 
> Merci, Matthew.



Looks like the engine problems are solved.  

Ground testing in static rigs is complete and the engine will actually fly on their C130 test bed aircraft in the very near future.

http://www.europrop.aero/pages/news/EPI%20-%20TP400%20Ground%20Runs%20at%20Marshall%20Aerospace%20-%20release%20VA.pdf



We'll know if the engine issues are resolved after they get a whole bunch of actual flying time, but it looks good at this time.


----------



## Haletown

high level description of what they are doing now . . .  notice the Herc is "bolted" down.

http://defence-data.com/current/page40369.htm


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Haletown said:
			
		

> Looks like the engine problems are solved.
> 
> Ground testing in static rigs is complete and the engine will actually fly on their C130 test bed aircraft in the very near future.
> 
> http://www.europrop.aero/pages/news/EPI%20-%20TP400%20Ground%20Runs%20at%20Marshall%20Aerospace%20-%20release%20VA.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> We'll know if the engine issues are resolved after they get a whole bunch of actual flying time, but it looks good at this time.



Thanks Haletown....


Matthew.


----------



## Genetk44

Just spoke to my contacts in the industry...the engine was ground run on the Herc( as per the pics in a previous post) for a total of 10 minutes...they are redesigning the compressor, so it, the new compressor, won't be in service until next year. As for the 10 minute run on the Herc, I'm informed that although a 10 minute first-run is not unusual, what is unusual is that there hasn't been another run since then....draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Scott

The Head,

If you have an axe to grind you can go grind it elsewhere.

Only warning you're getting from me.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## 295

As the local CASA rep also in charge of the A400M I of course appreciate your overall positive remarks of the recent roll-out. Questions came up regarding possible engine challenges, which I explain here in more detail:

The first TP400-D4 engine run took place in October 2005 and the first engine and propeller run was performed in an out-door test facility in Istres (Southern France) in February 2006, successfully achieving a Contractual Milestone.

During the engine test programme, technical issues were discovered. The Power Gear Box suffered manufacturing quality issues, causing premature failure of the bearings while the Gear Box casing casting in Magnesium encountered quality problems. In August 2007, a High Pressure Compressor (HPC) failure occurred in a test engine. At the time of discovery of the HPC issue, the total engine test hours were close to 500 hours. The root cause of the HPC failure was identified in October 2007 and the engine test rig was modified to avoid unnecessary high-power surge. Engine test runs continued. The improved HPC will be installed on the test engine in August 2008 for testing and the production standard HPC will be available in October 2008. On 24 June 2008, engine test runs had accumulated 1550 hours, with 3 to 5 engines running simultaneously. All the necessary engine tests for MSN001 first flight clearance are scheduled to be completed by the end of July 2008, with a possibility of 1 month extension.  

One TP400-D4 engine has been installed on a C-130 aircraft for flying test. The first successful engine ground run on the C-130 took place in early June 2008 and first flight of the engine is scheduled at end of July 2008.

All in all, once the aircraft is airborne and in operations no one will talk about engine casings anymore. I haven't given up hope yet Canada will someday take a serious look at the A400M.

295


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Thank you "295".

I had this nigglin' feeling that you were not going to, as others haven't in the past, disclose your close ties to a thread subject.

Hope you stay around and take advantage of the collective knowledge of http://www.air-force.ca.

Bruce


----------



## GAP

Engines aside, I believe there are a multitude of issues still unresolved for the entire run that have to be sorted out rather quickly to gain any credibility....one major issue is the viability of the partners staying together...


----------



## Haletown

"I haven't given up hope yet Canada will someday take a serious look at the A400M."

And I maintain hope that someday the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup.   ;D

Hope is a wonderful thing.


----------



## armyvern

Haletown said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> And I maintain hope that someday the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup.   ;D
> 
> ...



What!!?? By trying to keep over-the-hill guys around at twenty million for two years!!??  >

Go Boston!!  ;D


----------



## MedTechStudent

Haletown said:
			
		

> And I maintain hope that someday the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup.   ;D



Ya, lets keep that dream alive for another *four decades*


----------



## 295

As a Penguins fan my hopes were almost rewarded. Seriously, if several European countries decide to invest billions in new defence projects Canada only stands to profit from a competitive environment, the A400M being case-in-point. Its partners will stay together to tackle challenges we indeed have but eventually will overcome.
295


----------



## Haletown

EADS has repeatedly said the A400M Program is in serious financial trouble - translation: it is not a profitable program. Since EADS is in some financial difficulties of it's own and there is very little cash (euros) or Executive stomach for continued support for the program.  The Aibus A380 investment is huge, sales have stalled and the break even point now is probably in excess of 600 aircraft. 

Airbus also needs large investments for it's A350XWB project and will have to follow that investment with the next gen narrow body . . .  lotsa investment dollars needed.  The Power 8 restructuring Program  is in trouble as well, so the planned for cost savings are proving harder to deliver to their bottom line.

If they don't sell a bunch of A400's to new buyers very soon there will be extreme pressure to terminate & cut the losses.

IMHO, we'll never see in one in CAF livery.


----------



## aergenium

Hi all
I work in the factory where the A400M is built in Seville, a beautiful city in the South of Spain. 

I'm glad to see that the roll-out sparked so much interest. Please don't take it wrong, I do not represent my company in any way, I'm just personally proud of the work we're doing.

There is a collection of articles, a number of high resolution pictures and some videos of the a400m roll-out in the following link:

http://aergenium.blogspot.com/search/label/A400M

(the site is in Spanish)

Kind regards,


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Nothing wrong with being proud of your work and achievements.


----------



## aergenium

Haletown said:
			
		

> it does have a passing resemblance in place to a fat 141  . . .
> 
> here's the roll-out party
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3eLNxKsE1E&feature=related



Hi Haletown
the link to the video does not seem to work, I get this message:

This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request.

Do you know how to get to it?

Cheers


----------



## Haletown

hmmmm. . .  seems the video has been pulled . . .


----------



## Globesmasher

Anybody know when the inaugural test flight is scheduled for?


----------



## Haletown

they haven't announced the actual day/date.

Last month they said this:

"A400M test-flight schedule under strain: EADS head

(AFP) - The timing of a test flight for the Airbus A400M military plane, currently planned for this summer, is coming under strain, the executive head of Airbus parent EADS warned on Monday. 'Our objective is still to have a first flight this summer even if we must acknowledge that it's becoming more and more under pressure, notably because of the engine,' EADS chief executive Louis Gallois told a press conference. 'The plane is complicated, the engine is complicated "

So summer '08 gives them until mid September_ish


----------



## geo

Umm... Mid septemberish of.... which year ?

Let's face it, the engines are a massive undertaking... not something you want to rush.


----------



## Haletown

2008 . . . . just a few months from now.

We shall see.


----------



## ArmyRick

Rollout? When does it do its "Flyout". Ok, all kidding aside, has this thing actually flown yet?


----------



## Haletown

The A400M aircraft has not flown yet.  As far as I know, the engines mounted on the aircraft have never been started while attached to an A400M.

The C130 engine testbed aircraft has also not flown yet.

As far as I can tell, the C130 testbed aircraft has had it's test engine running, but only while the aircraft is held motionless.  I have not heard of any taxi tests, at any speed or any flight tests.


Tick, tock.


----------



## Haletown

The latest news from EADS at Farnborough

"Initial ground tests of the Airbus Military A400M's TP400-D6 engine with a flying testbed have resulted in "no issues at all", says Europrop International vice-president Jacques Desclaux. A fourth run is expected in the UK on 18 July."

rtr @   http://tinyurl.com/6oo85f


----------



## Haletown

RUMINT . . .  for now anyway

"The maiden flight of the A400M military transport aircraft could be postponed to this autumn.

The maiden flight of the A400M military transport aircraft could be postponed to this autumn. The programme reportedly accumulates persistent technical issues. Les Echos

Tags: A400M, Airbus"


http://tinyurl.com/5rlmeh


----------



## OldSolduer

Interesting that Airbus would sue the Canadian government for not choosing their plane. It hasn't even flown yet.


----------



## Haletown

found the original article  . . .  http://tinyurl.com/64emry.

This is big stuff . . FADEC software is seriously complex



Google translation . . .

The first flight of the A400M risk of slipping in the fall
[ 02/06/08  - 19H53   - actualisé à 19:53:00  ] [02/06/08 - 19H53 - updated 19:53:00]
Augmenter la taille du texte

. Scheduled for early June, the flight of the Hercules C-130 designed to test the engine aircraft of the future European military transport, is postponed to mid-July at best. A cela s'ajoutent de gros problèmes de logiciels. In addition, major problems of software.

The clouds accumulate on the A400M. Scheduled for these days, the flight of the Hercules C-130 of the British company Marshall Aerospace equipped with an engine TP400 will certainly be delayed a month or a month and a half. . The aircraft had already suffered a great visit.. But to make matters worse, it accumulates over the past month a series of technical problems which clouent ground.

 Last avatar to date, the starter pneumatic valve closes after being activated! . The bench test flying ( "FTB" in English) engine aircraft of the future European military transport is thus set for the moment. ". "The C-130 should not be able to take off until mid or late July," says one source close.

 Meanwhile here in Toulouse, at Airbus Military, the company in charge of the A400M program, s'arrache hair. . The latest version of "Fadec", the software that controls the engine and propellers developed by the German MTU, is considered "unacceptable". . Result, a letter was sent to OCCAR * representing seven countries customers of the aircraft to prevent the first flight is postponed to August 31 "with two months of risk", on July 31 against with three risk up there.

The accumulation of concerns strengthens the hypothesis of a first flight in the fall, then officially, EADS has set yet as the summer deadline. In doing so, the group Aeronautic Defence and European approaches ten months of delay, and therefore the obligation to pay penalties.

The only consolation, benches static of TP400 will have more time to run the tests. . So far, 1500 hours were achieved without major detect seed, ensures there within EPI, the consortium responsible for developing the engine and which includes french Snecma, Rolls Royce British, German MTU and Spanish ITP.

Alain Ruello Alain Ruello

* Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d'Armement * Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation in Matter of Weaponry


----------



## Haletown

more news  . . .   doesn't really say much but the strain on the program schedule just gets worse  . . . .  

http://tinyurl.com/5g3yhw

"Software, engine failures threaten A400M schedule
By Max Kingsley-Jones

The Airbus Military A400M is facing further challenges to its flight-test campaign, following two engine-related issues encountered during ground trials.

Airbus executive vice-president programmes Tom Williams says there have been "a couple of failures" of the Europrop International TP400-D6 engine during ground testing, including engine No 5 during water ingestion trials and engine No 6, which suffered a "gearbox problem"."


----------



## Haletown

OOPSIE !!  As predicted 

Looks like another deadline in another schedule has gone bye-bye.

"A400M schedule at risk as key engine test slips to October
By Craig Hoyle

Airbus Military's A400M will miss EADS's targeted "summer" first flight objective, with industry and military sources now indicating that vital sorties using a modified Lockheed Martin C-130 transport in the UK are unlikely to take place before next month."

http://tinyurl.com/55lobv


And  Airbus wanted us to buy these instead of 17's &  J Hercs.


----------



## geo

Heh... we can always think of buying them once the C17s ahd CC130Js are ready for retirement >


----------



## tomahawk6

EADS is threatening their customers now. ;D

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3734593&c=EUR&s=AIR

EADS May Freeze A400M Production for 7 Countries

BERLIN - Aerospace giant EADS has threatened to freeze production of its Airbus subsidiary's flagship military airlifter if clients do not drop penalty clauses for late delivery, a German news report said Sept. 20.

Der Spiegel weekly, trailing its Sept. 22 publication, cited a letter sent by Louis Gallois, the French chief executive of both companies, to the governments of seven countries who have ordered the A400M plane.

In the letter, Gallois is quoted as saying the military carrier is "a heavy lossmaker" that is creating "considerable difficulties" at EADS, weighing down on the group's financial performance.

The "anticipated profits" from 180 orders on Airbus' books have already been "invested," with Gallois adding in the letter that the present position could become "untenable" within months unless a deal is agreed that "keeps everyone happy."

EADS wants clients to waive their contractual right to reductions in their bills due to late delivery, but Der Spiegel said Germany's defense ministry would be "standing firm," and Berlin is of the view that "financial concessions" should only be discussed upon receipt of the planes.

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland also reported this week that Gallois sent a letter pleading for "understanding" on the A400M.

Last week, Gallois said the plane's first flight would take place "before the end of the year," but the French press reported soon afterward that costs had risen astronomically and that the first flight was being put back to 2009.

Germany has ordered 60 A400Ms, making it the biggest customer.

Airbus has been struggling with four important delay announcements having been made since 2006 on delivery of its A380 superjumbo civil airliners.


----------



## Good2Golf

> ....The "anticipated profits" from 180 orders on Airbus' books have already been "invested,"....



What the heck does that mean?  ???   Without any deposits paid, what revenue at all could be recieved from which "profits" could be redirected to other business lines?


----------



## tomahawk6

So much for customer service.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> What the heck does that mean?  ???   Without any deposits paid, what revenue at all could be recieved from which "profits" could be redirected to other business lines?



Would that mean that the "anticipated transfer price",  the price which all those Euro Air Forces have budgeted for their bulk buys, has been exceeded?  Meaning one of two things - government bailout or dead project.


----------



## TCBF

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would that mean that the "anticipated transfer price",  the price which all those Euro Air Forces have budgeted for their bulk buys, has been exceeded?  Meaning one of two things - government bailout or dead project.



- Lets find out where Boeing Corporate HQ is and go crash the wild party that must be in progress at the moment.


----------



## Kirkhill

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Lets find out where Boeing Corporate HQ is and go crash the wild party that must be in progress at the moment.



You think in suitably bizarre non-patterns earthling...... ;D


----------



## Haletown

More not good news.

"The Europrop TP400 engine that has been fitted to a C-130 testbed at Cambridge, UK, by Marshall Aerospace ran at full power for the first time last week. But unanticipated problems integrating the 11,000-shp powerplant on the C-130 have further delayed the A400M program.

AIN understands that the problems have included vibration in the fuselage from the eight-blade propellers, and the need to protect the C-130’s rear wing and flap from the much greater heat produced by the TP400. The testbed engine replaces the aircraft’s port inboard 5,000-shp T56 turboprop.

In the 14 weeks since the TP400 was first ground-run on the C-130, only six hours have been logged. Program officials previously said that 30 hours of ground running would be required before the testbed could fly, and 50 hours of flight time would be required before the A400M could make its first flight.

The testbed is unlikely to fly before mid-November, a source told AIN. EADS CEO Louis Gallois said last week that the first flight of Europe’s new military transport could still take place by year-end.

  http://tinyurl.com/3w4rxf


  And there is still the hint of a story that won't go away about major issues with the FADEC software.  If theses stories are even partly true, they are fekked . . .  FADEC is software sooooooooooo complicated and difficult to troubleshoot.

Especially if you are trying to mate it with an engine still under development.

I'm sticking with my prediction of March 2009 first flight of the A400m


----------



## tomahawk6

I think it wont be anytime before April 2010.


----------



## TCBF

- May 2011.

 8)


----------



## YZT580

I suspect that Boeing would be willing to open up a few delivery slots in the C-17 assembly line to assist the Germans until such time as the A400 can be delivered.  Forget the C130.  They are sold out for any large fleet deliveries for the next 5 years I think.  Sad though.  If they hadn't been so keen on trying to build their own engine systems, and had opened it up to P & W they might not be faced with all of these problems


----------



## Haletown

LM is pondering a "change" to the good old Herc/Jerc that could be the A400 killer

 http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/picture-meet-the-c130xl.html


----------



## TCBF

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... If they hadn't been so keen on trying to build their own engine systems, and had opened it up to P & W they might not be faced with all of these problems



- Being Canadians, we know the fatal delays that can result from developing a new airframe AND a new engine (AND a new weapons system) at the same time.


----------



## ironduke57

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... If they hadn't been so keen on trying to build their own engine systems, and had opened it up to P & W they might not be faced with all of these problems



Well noone can say that it couldn´t had happened the same way, if P&W would have been responsible for the engine´s. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## geo

Quite possible Ironduke.... then again, a multi-national syndicate build VS a single source contracting might have averted some of the problems being experienced by the A400M.


----------



## Haletown

"If they hadn't been so keen on trying to build their own engine systems, and had opened it up to P & W they might not be faced with all of these problems"

Actually, in the beginning,  they did have an open competition and PWC won the bid for the engines - best price and technical proposal, lowest risk.  

Then the Euro weenie politicians got involved, arbitrarily canceled the deal because they wanted Euro jobs.

So the irony was supreme when they attempted to derail the purchase plans for the C17's we bought by spreading rumours and stories to the Quebec media, the PQ and the Bloc that only Airbus/ EADS would give Quebec the rightful aviation jobs they should have and that Boeing wouldn't.

Some cheeky, screw Quebec over in the first place and then claim to be their saviour.

Gotta love the Euros,  just like they love themselves.


Thank Crikey we bought the 17's & the Jercs and didn't fall for their snake oil sales pitch.


----------



## ironduke57

geo said:
			
		

> Quite possible Ironduke.... then again, a multi-national syndicate build VS a single source contracting might have averted some of the problems being experienced by the A400M.


True. I for myself would had preferred that they select one of our engine producers (e.g. MTU ) to develop it. Production could be be splitted later. (Like Leo2 which was originally produced by Krauss-Maffei and Atlas-MaK.)




			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> ...
> Then the Euro weenie politicians got involved, arbitrarily canceled the deal because they wanted Euro jobs.
> ...



Yeah right. Something like this can´t happen in Canada.   ;D

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Don2wing

Re: Geo's earlier post on the C-130XL

LM is pondering a "change" to the good old Herc/Jerc that could be the A400 killer

 http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/picture-meet-the-c130xl.html

  Here is a picture of a Short Belfast from the 60's. This plane came to not as the UK had a pound sterling crisis and needed a loan 
at the IMF. Part of the solution, as the Americans ran it, was that the Brits drop development of the Belfast and buy the C-130s.  Its cargo deck was 64 ft long and the fuselage over 18 feet in diameter. Not bad for the sixties as it could carry a Chieftain tank of the day.  The Europeans push their products but so do the Americans.


----------



## Haletown

and now, the confession that had to come.  

"The first flight of the A400M until now planned before the end of 2008 will be postponed, because of the unavailability of the propulsion system.

The first flight actually depends on the results of the test campaign to be done on the flying test bed, which should start in the coming weeks, and on the readiness of the propulsion system.

Only after this and further discussions with customers, the financial, technical and schedule implications can be reliably assessed.

The 2008 guidance of the group is not changed"

  http://tinyurl.com/3hejyj


----------



## Haletown

and now the internal finger pointing blame  game has started.   Cool !

"Ouch! the knives are coming out and the finger pointing is starting over the latest delay to the A400M, pushing first flight into at least 2009.

 Safran, a key member in the Europrop International engine partnership, is taking issue with EADS’s explanation for why the A400M won’t fly.

EADS clearly put the blame on the engine makers, but Safran points out that eight TP400 turboprops for the first two A400M flight test aircraft have been delivered."

http://tinyurl.com/5y3rod


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just to rub it in:

C-17 Advances as A400M Slips
_Aviation Week & Space Technology_, Sept. 29, page 20 (text subscriber only)
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2008/09/29/AW_09_29_2008_p20-83911.xml&query=c-17+a400m



> NATO has taken a big step forward in boosting its airlift capacity with the signing of a memorandum of understanding to acquire three Boeing C-17 airlifters.
> 
> The move comes as EADS has acknowledged that the A400M’s first flight will not take place this year. It was initially supposed to take place last year and has been delayed repeatedly. EADS, the majority partner in the Airbus Military consortium developing the airlifter, blames “unavailability of the propulsion system,” and has not given a new first flight date.
> 
> The TP400, being developed by Europrop International, is now being prepared for flight trials on the Marshall Aerospace C-130 testbed. The engine will complete about 50 flight-test hours, at which time the expectation is the A400M will be cleared to fly.
> 
> EADS says it’s not adjusting its financial guidance as a result, although the delay will likely spell the need to take further financial provisions. With no schedule margin left, delays in getting to first flight translate directly into postponing deliveries to customers, company officials concede. *The first handover now may not take place until at least 2011* [emphasis added]...
> 
> The delay could force some customers to review their airlift plans. The U.K. at one point considered buying up to 10 C-17s; it so far has committed to six and indicated it could go higher if the production line remains open.
> 
> *Meanwhile, NATO hopes to take delivery of its first C-17 in March* [emphasis added], with two more to follow roughly three months apart. The U.S. Defense Dept. is providing the first aircraft, while NATO is buying the other two directly. They will be based at the Papa air base in Hungary.
> 
> So far, 12 countries have signed the agreement: Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the U.S. The Czech Republic is still debating the issue, but chances are seen as slim it will commit. Italy has asked for an extension to sign until December. The acquisition is the first major NATO weapons purchase since the alliance made the commitment to buy E-3 Awacs early warning aircraft 30 years ago.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

With France officially being in recession, and the subprime fiasco hitting European banks and governments hard, there is a real chance that the whole consortium will go belly up, rather than sink scads of more money into it and Airbus's nonperformance routine.....


----------



## Haletown

And to think there was such huge opposition to buying C17's for the CF and such a correspondingly large  cry from the MSM and certain political groups to buy the  A400 - now the infamous A400, instead.

If only they had stuck with their original choice for an engine supplier and not allowed political expediency to dictate rejecting PWC and going with an  untried home team.

When I think of the four new C17's in CF livery, four aircraft delivered quickly and that perform so well, I can't help but feels some pangs of shadenfrude for EADS.


----------



## KJK

According to Defense Industry Daily Airbus has shutdown production of the A400M. It could be a long time before it flies, if ever.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/A400M-Delays-Creating-Contract-Controversies-05080/#more-5080

KJK


----------



## geo

Huge opposition to the CF buying C17s ???
Think it was more EADS that was pushing to have their bird considered for the job... Far as I can remember, the CF & DND people were all on the C17s side.


----------



## Haletown

The 400 will eventually fly . .  there is way too money & pride sunk into the program to have it fail.

Every day of delay costs a lot euros.  The 130 test bed has yet to get airborne and there are persistent stories  that the FADEC software sucks . .   a VERY big problem because that software has to certified before it can fly. 

Every day of delay means more doubt to the long term future of the program past the initial purchases in Europe.

Shoulda stayed with the PWC engines . . . .  they'd be airborne by now


----------



## Haletown

as an aside, I guess we wouldn't need these if we had purchased the A400

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-cc177-loader.htm


----------



## geo

Haletown said:
			
		

> as an aside, I guess we wouldn't need these if we had purchased the A400
> 
> http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-cc177-loader.htm



Ummm... no - they would still serve a purpose with the A400, Airbuses &/or other commercial aircraft being used to resupply our forces.


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... no - they would still serve a purpose with the A400, Airbuses &/or other commercial aircraft being used to resupply our forces.



except if we had purchased the A400, we would still be waiting for delivery of the aircraft so ummmmmm, we wouldn't need them


----------



## danchapps

Haletown said:
			
		

> The 400 will eventually fly . .  there is way too money & pride sunk into the program to have it fail.



Reminds me of Howard Hughes and the original Hercules cargo plane (the Spruce Goose as it was nick-named). Maybe they'll keep pressing on with the engine and software portion, but hold off on the airframe construction so they could at least attempt to save some face on it. The bird looks pretty, but it nothing more that a lawn ornament until she gets airborne.



I like the 44k loader by the way, looks purdy to me. (So I'm a machine geek)


----------



## geo

Haletown said:
			
		

> except if we had purchased the A400, we would still be waiting for delivery of the aircraft so ummmmmm, we wouldn't need them


Sure we would... using em on our Hercs & the antonov's we'd constantly be renting to look after our strategic airlift


----------



## 295

When first presented in Canada around 2002/3 the then concept had indeed lots of support within the AF while timelines were always cited as too long, understandably so and we did not just hear that in Canada. Current delays don't help adding credibility to proposed timelines but fact is, much like the A380 the A400M will fly and succeed as a program, too much has been invested, it has full political support and, last but not least there is no viable alternative to it. 
When my colleagues from PWC mock me about the engines I suck it up, not much else to do but to agree with them. 
I recently went to Trenton and saw 2 C17 side by side, most impressive, no question and nothing compares to it. Reasons why this materialized so quick were a politico-military concurrence and a true off-the-shelf purchase.
The latter in particular made this easy for the OEM to offer slots. I only wish a similar straight-forward off-the-shelf process would be applied more often and we all could move on to other tasks rather than to watch certain projects spin in circles.


----------



## Haletown

As predicted . . . .  FADEC software is a real bitch

"Software development is proving the latest in a growing list of culprits responsible for the delay in the first flight of the Airbus Military A400M.

A senior Airbus executive now suggests a first flight in the latter half of 2009 – a near three year slip on when the aircraft was due to fly. Development and verification of the software for the full authority digital engine control system for the TP400-D6 engine is proving a harder challenge than originally anticipated.

The A400M appears to be suffering from a “conspiracy of optimism” – though it is far from the only military project to have been beset by such.

Getting the program back on track – albeit one with a credibly revised time frame – is of fundamental importance: the partner nations need to know when they will actually get the aircraft, and Airbus – and EADS and other companies involved – need to figure out the extent of the financial hit they may have yet to take.

And there also remains the small issue of European credibility in the military transport arena.

Picture Credit Airbus Military   "



http://tinyurl.com/5lxdos


----------



## ironduke57

And it fly´s! At least the TP400.
- http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae86bb804-58f4-4af9-993a-2ae796dce715

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## danchapps

For a sec I thought it was the test aircraft, then I read the link. Almost had a heart attack because of that. I still think they will get 1 flying then shelve the program.


----------



## aesop081

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I still think they will get 1 flying then shelve the program.



I doubt it. Theres too much money and political capital invested in it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

What use flogging a decomposing horse? (Via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_)
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2009/01/09/spotnews_e.html

First A400M delivery in 2012 or later 
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/4780/



> 22:31 GMT, January 9, 2009 Airbus Military and EADS have proposed a new programme approach for the A400M to the Launch Nations, through OCCAR, with the aim to find a way forward for this programme.
> 
> Airbus Military and EADS want to discuss the programme schedule along with changes to other areas of the contract including in particular certain technical characteristics of this first-class military aircraft.
> 
> Airbus Military suggests to resume series production only once adequate maturity is reached, based on flight test results. With this proposed new approach, the first delivery of the A400M would then occur around three years after first flight.
> 
> Airbus Military is still working with the engine consortium to firm up a date for the first flight.
> 
> Airbus Military and EADS will only be able to reliably determine all financial implications once a committed industrial plan, including the availability of systems, is fully stabilized and once OCCAR's position on the proposal is known.
> 
> This proposed new approach will not compromise the ultimate qualities and the exceptional characteristics of the airplane, with the most advanced logistic and tactical capabilities that will be delivered to the armed forces and will make A400M a unique airplane in its category.



UDPATE 2-EADS wants A400M contract change, adds delay
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2009/01/09/2009-01-09T215133Z_01_L9151666_RTRIDST_0_EADS-UPDATE-2.html



> Airbus parent EADS, seeking to bolster a troubled European military project, called Friday for a renegotiated contract with NATO nations and indicated the A400M airlifter would not be ready before 2012.
> 
> The plane -- designed to plug gaps in transport capacity in conflict zones like Afghanistan or to carry out humanitarian missions -- has been hit by delays in building its massive turbo-prop engines, sparking a public row with suppliers.
> 
> EADS has in turn been unable to meet its obligations to seven European NATO countries that ordered the plane in the largest single European arms purchase in 2003, placed through procurement agency OCCAR.
> 
> In a statement after markets closed Friday, EADS said it wanted to "discuss the programme schedule along with changes to other areas of the contract including in particular certain technical characteristics."
> 
> People familiar with the 20 billion-euro project have said it includes extensive customisation to meet national military priorities.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

I guess they are going to concede the market to the C-17 - if the production line remains open.

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2009/01/a-400m-vers-un.html

A 400M : vers un abandon du programme ?

 C'est une rumeur persistante dans les milieux aéronautiques : la direction d'Airbus - en particulier l'entourage de Fabrice Brégier - ainsi qu'au moins un gouvernement engagé dans le programme d'avion de transport militaire A 400M auraient étudié l'hypothèse de son abandon. 

La situation ne fait que se dégrader, comme nous le racontions ici en début de semaine. Mercredi, le PDG d'EADS Louis Gallois reconnaissait d'ailleurs que son groupe avait "totalement sous-estimé la complexité de l'avion", rapporte l'hébdomadaire Air et Cosmos... 

La production de l'appareil, qui avait débutée en Espagne, a été gelée jusqu'à nouvel ordre. En clair, dans l'attente d'une solution technique qui permettrait de faire fonctionner le Fadec (régulateur numérique des turbopropulseurs)  ainsi que d''une solution commerciale, avec la renégociation du contrat (pas de pénalités et acceptation par les Etats de recevoir des avions avec des standards dégradés par rapport à la commande). Comme le dit un professionnel de ce secteur, très pessimiste sur l'avenir de ce projet, "dans tout fiasco, il faut regarder ce qu'il reste à dépenser, plutôt que ce qui a déjà été dépensé". Or, bien peu a été dépensé, ne serait-ce que par rapport au coût prévu du programme...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

A 400M: Possible program cancelation?

It is a persistent rumor in the aviation community: the Airbus management - particularly Fabrice Brégier entourage - and at least a government part of A400M program have studied the option of scrubing the entire program.

The situation is worsening as we told here earlier this week. Wednesday, EADS CEO Louis Gallois also acknowledged that his group had "totally underestimated the complexity of the aircraft," reports the weekly "Air and Cosmos" ...

The production of the aircraft, which had begun in Spain, has been frozen until further notice. Clearly, waiting for a technical solution that would make the FADEC (digital turboprop) as well as a "business solution", with the renegotiation of the contract (no penalties and acceptance by States to receive airplanes with degraded standards in relation to the order). As a professional in this area, very pessimistic about the future of this project, "throughout fiasco, we must look at what is left to spend, rather than what has already been spent." However, little has been spent, if only in relation to the estimated cost of the program ...


----------



## geo

Heh... sounds like conceeding to the C17 AND the Hercules


----------



## Dissident

"Fiasco"

They are not even trying to be positive at all about it.


----------



## TCBF

- I can't help but think that if EADS had a Russian component, the aircraft would be flying by now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From AW&ST, Jan. 19, p. 35, text subscriber only):

EADS Wants More Time and Money for A400M



> _Europe’s grand plan for a military airlifter is at risk of coming undone
> Printed headline: *Trials and Tribulations*_
> 
> EADS and Airbus are not only seeking years more time to complete A400M development, but additional financial support as well. Industry likely has one final opportunity to rescue the program before the patience of at least some partner nations is exhausted.
> 
> Senior Airbus executives warn that they are unwilling to carry on with the A400M as presently structured.
> 
> “We want to continue the program, but in a way that ensures success,” says CEO Tom Enders. “With the current contractual and organizational set-up we will not get there. This is a ‘mission impossible.’”
> 
> Tom Williams, Airbus executive vice president for programs, concurs: “We think it would be irresponsible to continue on the current track.” According to Williams, the program needs to be placed on a “realistic, solid footing in terms of schedule, organization and financially.”..
> 
> As yet, Airbus has no estimate of how much more could be required for the program. Williams says the company has “no idea on the cost to complete,” adding that the priority is to conclude the ongoing program assessment.
> 
> When launched, the A400M was trumpeted as a military development on a civil aircraft timescale, an approach that has proved fundamentally flawed.
> 
> There are obvious signs of exasperation among the seven core partners following EADS’s proposal that production delivery of the aircraft not begin until three years from first flight, which had been scheduled for November 2007. The latest proposed slippage, according to British Defense Minister John Hutton, is “unacceptable.”
> 
> “We cannot accept a three- or four-year delay in the delivery of those aircraft. That would impose an unnecessary, unacceptable strain on our air assets,” Hutton said in response to a question in Parliament. “We, along with all our partner nations, will have to consider very carefully what the right response to the problem is.”..
> While the immediate focus for the delay is on the lack of a flightworthy full-authority digital engine control system for the prototype aircraft, [EADS CEO Louis] Gallois claims that EADS, its suppliers and the customers “completely underestimated the nature of the program . . . .We thought it was a flying truck.”
> 
> Development of the TP400-D6 turboprop engine, in general, has been a cause of delay, though questions about the aircraft’s propulsion have also served to mask other problem areas in the A400M program...
> 
> France was originally due to introduce the aircraft into service at the end of 2009, though now 2012 seems probable. Production ramp-up for the A400M is also likely to be slowed, leading to fewer early delivery slots. The RAF may have to wait until 2014-15.
> 
> The Defense Ministry is already in discussions over additional Boeing C-17 and Lockheed Martin C-130J transport aircraft as it considers how to address the capability gap left by the latest A400M lags. *The RAF has six C-17s, and its fleet could now grow to nine or 10* [emphasis added]...



Plus:

A400M Problems Range Far Beyond Engines
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/A400M012309.xml&headline=A400M%20Problems%20Range%20Far%20Beyond%20Engines&channel=defense



> PARIS – Airbus is facing much more than just contractual and schedule challenges in its A400M military airlifter program, as the aircraft may need massive re-engineering work to achieve its performance targets.
> 
> In turn, numerous issues threaten to make the A400M a less attractive and capable aircraft for its customers, industry sources tell Aviation Week. They come in addition to the well-publicized delays in the flight-test program that are linked to the lagging engine full authority digital engine control (FADEC) development (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 25, 2008).
> 
> One key area of concern appears to be the A400M being overweight, which would negatively affect the aircraft’s payload and range capabilities. Sources close to the program say the aircraft is significantly heavy in its current development status. The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, those sources say. A weight savings campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at the most, *leaving payload below the 30-ton mark* [emphasis added]...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Curious how the payload seems to have dropped --  Air Force Technology is still reporting the payload I remember them reporting 3 years ago.  And I remember at that time finding it noteworthy that it wasn't the 40 tonne limit being described in the press or the manufacturer's bumf.


A400M (Future Large Aircraft) Tactical Transport Aircraft, Europe

Dimensions
Length 43.8m
Height 14.6m
Wingspan 42.4m 
Maximum Take-Off Weight 130t 
Maximum Landing Weight 114t 
Operating Empty Weight 70t 
*Maximum Payload 37t *

Air Force Technology 

Lowering expectations.


----------



## danchapps

I'm still calling Spruce Goose on this one, 1 flight and that's it. Too bad though because it looks like a great aircraft on paper.


----------



## OldSolduer

And Airbus had the temerity to want to sue Canada because we chose the Herc and the C17.


----------



## Haletown

So they are saying 12 tons overweight but only a 7 ton drop in load capability.

Where's the other 5 tons gone ?


----------



## Kirkhill

The original plane was to deliver 40 tonne payload or 2x C130. (Edit: Once upon a time, when Stryker was young, the C130 was supposed to lift a Stryker, even as Stryker grew towards 20 tons {or maybe that was tonnes})
The one that went onto the drawing board was already reduced to 37 tonne
12 tonnes of additional mass would reduce the 37 tonne payload to 25 tonnes.

They are now claiming that the design payload was 30 tonnes and they are 7 tonnes short.
In other words they are at 23 tonnes.

25 tonnes/tons
23 tonnes/tons

A bit of marketing, a lack of clarity on tons or tonnes, a bit of a rounding error and there is your difference

What is really remarkable is that the C130J can lift 16 tonnes.

The A-400 was supposed to lift twice that.  Now it is expected to lift 40% more.

Rheinmetall and the German Air Force are going to be a bit miffed.



> A wide-ranging performance spectrum
> 
> *The new Puma infantry fighting vehicle * demonstrates once again Germany's paramount position in the domain of army technology. It sets the standard worldwide, as the following technical details make clear:
> 
> 
> *airportable in the future A400M transport plane*;
> rapid availability in the area of operations;
> modular armour elements;
> a single compartment for all occupants;
> a compact, newly developed, extremely powerful engine;
> highly effective mine protection;
> a remote-controlled turret;
> efficient armament for engaging all types of targets;
> suitable as a platform for future applications;
> interfaces for future systems (friend/foe identification, etc.)
> 
> Technical data
> maximum design weight: 43 tons
> *weight (Protection Level A): 31.45 tons *  ( 28.59 tonnes - edit )
> weight (Protection Level C): 40.7 tons
> crew: 9 (6+3);
> maximum road speed: 70 kilometres per hour
> power to weight ratio: 20 kW/t;
> length: 7,330 mm
> width: 3,430 mm
> total height: 3,050 mm



Source


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: Nice.  Now get a Canadian journalist to review the math.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ironduke57

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> They are now claiming that the design payload was 30 tonnes and they are 7 tonnes short.
> In other words they are at 23 tonnes.
> ...



Where did you get this from? I never anything in that direction. Sorry but without an reliable Source I say bullsh*t!

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Kirkhill

Keine probleme damit IronDuke57.



> ... The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, those sources say. A weight savings campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at the most, leaving payload below the 30-ton mark.



Source as listed above

37 tonne as identified Air Force Technology (cited above)
-12 tons (or tonnes? unclear) as cited by Aviation Week

Equals payload or 25 tons (or tonnes unclear)

POTENTIAL weight savings of 7 tons (or tonnes) MAY bring the payload back up to 32 tons (or tonnes) but early model production aircraft MIGHT only see a weight savings of 5 tons (or tonnes) bringing the payload up to 30 tons (or tonnes).

Given that Rheinmetall is calling for a stripped down Puma weight of something like 28 to 31 tons or tonnes (depending on who is doing the writing) that doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of spare change EVEN IF THEY CAN REALISE the weight savings. 

If they can't then I stand behind my sense that they will be trying to carry a 30 ton/ne piece of kit in a 25 ton/ne aircraft.

Wenn Sie wollen, mein Herr.


----------



## ironduke57

Ah now I see. Just an misinterpration. You posted "now claiming that the *design * payload was 30 tonnes" like someone would now say that it was always only designed for a 30t payload.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor

This is starting to sound like a drawn out verrsion of the Antonov AN-70 story. Hopefully it will have a better ending.....


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont think it will ever fly. The delays have killed the program and more buyers will be looking to buy C-130J's and or C-17's.


----------



## Kirkhill

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Ah now I see. Just an misinterpration. You posted "now claiming that the *design * payload was 30 tonnes" like someone would now say that it was always only designed for a 30t payload.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Entschuldigen Sie mir. Sie haben rechts.

I overstepped in my first post.  An overfast (uber schnell?) reading of the item thought that they HAD reduced the design weight to 30 tonnes.  My error on that point.  But, again, I still stand on point about 30 tonnes in a 25 tonne bag.

Cheers.


----------



## Haletown

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont think it will ever fly. The delays have killed the program and more buyers will be looking to buy C-130J's and or C-17's.



six months ago I would never have agreed with this statement, but now I think you could be right.  Airbus must be bleeding cash - the A380 is an economic disaster  - it will never be a profitable aircraft.  The break even point was over 500 and they have sold <200 aircraft and that was two years ago - the carrying charges on the project debt keep on accruing. The money needed to develop the A350 is huge and now the A400M is another cash sinkhole.

The company has to be hurting really bad, really big.  The various European governments have thrown Euros at them in the past but now that Europe is in a serious recession with many calls for bailouts and financial aid, this time Airbis might not be at the front of the handout line.

Going to be interesting to watch what happens.


----------



## Kirkhill

If the Europeans want to prevent the Americans adopting a Buy American policy all they have to do is adopt a Buy American policy themselves and adjust the balance of trade that is a prime contributor to the current fiscal/financial/monetary crisis.

Buying C130s and C17s would be a good start.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the Europeans want to prevent the Americans adopting a Buy American policy all they have to do is adopt a Buy American policy themselves



They already do quite a bit of it. buying an airlifter isnt going to adjust the balance enoug to counter american protectionism.


----------



## Kirkhill

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They already do quite a bit of it. buying an airlifter isnt going to adjust the balance enoug to counter american protectionism.



Some Europeans do a lot of "Buying American".  Others not so much,  In either event, right now, it is all about signals which are being scrutinized for indications of intent.  I agree a few C17s will only contribute square up the balance of trade for a day or two but it would be significant signal if, for example, the French and Germans were to indicate that they were willing to trust Americans to do the right thing and NOT protect American workers directly by, in turn, NOT protecting their workers.  Just like us with the Navistar truck purchase.    We sell LAVs to them.  They sell C17s and Navistars to us.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I agree a few C17s will only contribute square up the balance of trade for a day or two



Then done. NATO SAC ( mostly euro countries) bought 2 C-17s fresh from Boeing and the thrid from the USAF.

JSF.......more F-16s.......more F-16s.........


----------



## Kirkhill

No argument Aviator.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the size of the combined NATO forces and their self selected global responsibilities, they would need to buy far more C-17s than currently contemplated (if even our miniature defence establishment needs 6 of the monsters, NATO should be thinking of 20,30,40 or more....)

Getting in and out of places like Afghanistan or even Georgia will be a great deal simpler with that amount of airlift available.

Time to put that pipe down


----------



## aesop081

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the size of the combined NATO forces and their self selected global responsibilities, they would need to buy far more C-17s than currently contemplated (if even our miniature defence establishment needs 6 of the monsters, NATO should be thinking of 20,30,40 or more....)




Remember that not all NATO countries have signed on to SAC. The countries that have cannot afford to shell out for the entire alliance.


----------



## Haletown

nice summary . . .   

http://www.defenceoftherealm.com/


----------



## MarkOttawa

French fighting furiously for giant albatross--or should that be turkey?

French Aim To Push Compromise On A400M
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/A400M021209.xml&headline=French%20Aim%20To%20Push%20Compromise%20On%20A400M



> France appears ready to pull out all the stops to convince partners that they should agree to renegotiate price, delivery terms and specifications for the A400M, and not stop the troubled multibillion euro initiative.
> 
> Meeting with reporters here Feb 10, the chairmen of the French Senate’s foreign affairs, defense and armed forces and finance committees presented a report confirming Airbus warnings last month that the airlifter program could be up to four years late. Combined with indications that the *A400M might not meet certain design specifications, notably with respect to weight* [emphasis added], the warnings are pushing some partners, in particular the U.K., to threaten to pull out.
> 
> Seven European countries have ordered a total of 180 A400Ms, led by Germany (60), France (50), Spain (27) and the U.K. (25).
> 
> Delivery of the digital engine control system (FADEC), recently programmed for July, is now expected around October. This means the A400M is *unlikely to make its first flight until early 2010 – two years behind the original schedule. Initial deliveries are not expected until late 2012, and perhaps late 2013 – four years later than called for* [emphasis added] – if the prime contractor, Airbus, decides to limit production in the first year to allow for maturing design.
> 
> Nevertheless, the chairmen said findings indicated that management reshuffles inside EADS/Airbus and within the propulsion team – with Rolls-Royce and Snecma now assuming a lead role – can get the program back on track and that technical hurdles are not insurmountable. EADS officials suggested additional benefit could be realized by separating development of the propulsion system into a separate contract, distinct from that of the aircraft system.
> 
> French press reports suggest fixing the program could raise its cost by 5 billion euros ($6.5 billion), the amount that customers have paid out to date for the 20 billion euro undertaking. EADS has provisioned 1.8 billion euros so far for schedule and cost overruns, with lesser amounts coming from other contractors.
> 
> But the lawmakers also suggested that abandoning the effort – Europe’s biggest cooperative military undertaking by far – would entail an economic, financial and political cost far outweighing the cost of setting it right. They said they had submitted their findings directly to French President Nicolas Sarkozy with the request that the matter be brought up at the highest political level as soon as European defense procurement agency Occar, which is managing the A400M, finishes its ongoing inquiry into program difficulties. This is expected within a few weeks.
> 
> Under the terms of the contract, the seven *launch customers can pull out of the deal or seek to renegotiate its terms if delivery is delayed more than 14 months. This provision becomes effective on March 31* [emphasis added].
> 
> Committee member Jacques Gautier said France will be forced to resort to various stratagems to meet its own interim airlift needs until the A400M is ready. Among these are to prolong the life of some of its Transalls, where possible; pushing forward the acquisition of two A330s due to be purchased under a forthcoming tanker-transport buy; wet-leasing more An-124s; and acquiring a few Casa C212/235 light transports. Leasing a few Lockheed Martin C130Js or Boeing C-17s [_Quelle humilitation_! Latest on Boeing plans for C-17 here]
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/C17-021309.xml&headline=Boeing%20Turns%20to%20Cost%20Reduction%20on%20C-17%20Sales&channel=defense
> is also “not excluded,” he says, “as long as it does not threaten the future of the A400M.”



Via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_:
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/257-Eng.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

All weep for the long suffering European taxpayers who will be forced to open their wallets, again, to pay for this monument to European aerospace vanity.

The A380 was the first financial boondoggle that EADS/Airbus inflicted on Europe but the A400M looks like it might overtake that fiasco.  

Thank goodness the Canadian government didn't give in to the political pressures orchestrated by EADS/Airbus and sign us up to purchase this aircraft.


----------



## MarkOttawa

EADS admits cancellations possible:

OCCAR 'unlikely' to use A400M termination clause: EADS 
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/10/323581/occar-unlikely-to-use-a400m-termination-clause-eads.html



> EADS has admitted that delays to the first flight of the Airbus Military A400M could lead to orders being cancelled next month, but considers a contract termination "unlikely".
> 
> In a statement issued ahead of its annual results briefing, EADS acknowledges that "as the A400M will not perform its first flight before the end of March 2009" the customer - OCCAR - has a contractual right to claim termination of the entire contract as of 1 April.
> 
> EADS says that termination may only be obtained with "a unanimous mandate of all the launch nations" represented by European procurement agency OCCAR. While EADS considers a termination "very unlikely", it admits that "each of the launch nations may claim cancellation of those individual aircraft which would be subtantially delayed".
> 
> Addressing an analyst conference today, EADS CEO Louis Gallois said that negotiations with A400M customers were ongoing and that there was “no sign” of contract termination being sought.
> 
> He noted that Germany, France and Spain had expressed a “wish to negotiate”, which he said was indicative of a desire to continue with the programme, while the UK “has not said the opposite”. Topics under negotiation include the time schedule for deliveries, delivery standards, the production ramp-up, delay penalties, allowances for inflation, and bridging solutions to meet capacity shortfalls.
> 
> Termination of the contract by OCCAR would trigger reimbursement of pre-delivery and other payments amounting to a total of approximately €5.7 billion ($7.3 billion).
> 
> *Under a "new approach" EADS proposed to the launch nations in January, first delivery of the A400M would follow three years after its first flight, with series production resuming only once "adequate maturity" is reached, based on flight test results* [emphasis added]. OCCAR has not yet responded to the proposal...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

not sure but, if EADS were to be forced into reimbursing $7.3 Billion - would think that this would trigger the firm's bankruptcy - or certainly it's insolvency... and I don't think the Western European governments are prepared to go that route.


----------



## Kirkhill

geo, they may just decide to stop sending money down the hole.

It wouldn't be the first defence project to be written off as a bad loss after the GNP of a small nation or two has been blown.


----------



## geo

Agreed... I was just pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that they will be required to reimburse the 7.3B$


----------



## Haletown

Uh oh . . .   the early ugly looks to be starting.

"The Government is considering whether to scrap a £2.5 billion order for military transport aircraft after delays of at least three years to the project.

EADS, which owns Airbus, said yesterday that it would not meet production targets for the A400M and, as a result, its customers would be able to walk away from the project with no penalty.

The Ministry of Defence has ordered 25 of the giant propeller-powered A400Ms, which are capable of carrying up to 32 tonnes of equipment, but it is looking at alternative options because of delays.

One possibility is to scrap the project altogether, which is thought to be favoured by the Royal Air Force. The Commons Defence Committee also recommended last month that Britain should pull out of the A400M programme. The MoD may also choose to reduce the number of aircraft ordered and replace them with C17s from Boeing or C130Js from Lockheed Martin. "

http://tinyurl.com/cukn7e


----------



## geo

Hmmm... trialed and tested design VS vaporware..... decisions, decisions, decisions!


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm... trialed and tested design VS vaporware..... decisions, decisions, decisions!



Ya for sure.

Does make me wonder if, in these dark days of the program with the engines still not working, the senior management of EADS have ever discussed why they decided to kick P&WC off the program and go instead with the political decision to build a Euro engine.  Reality is such a bitch compared to the warm comfy fur of political hubris.

Ohhhhhhhh  yes . . .   shadenfrude is so lovely, especially in the morning.


----------



## geo

haletown...
I am sure the politicians asked themselves.... "how hard could it be to build an engine?"

Now they know!  It's expensive and there are no guarantees that they will do it right


----------



## YZT580

reality bites!  The tone of thought around the European community though is that the airplane will still fly, and after a lot of grumbling and compensation everyone will stay the course.  Those who differ expect that the order book will shrink as each customer i.e. MOD buys enough heavy lift to bridge the gap until the A400 is finally delivered so GB will, for instance reduce their order book to 10.  Wishful thinking or political reality?  The reality may be that airbus is informing HM government that if you cancel, we pull future development out of England.  That is what happens when you lose control of your industry to offshore interests.


----------



## Haletown

It is going to very interesting to watch.  The Eurozone is living under huge internal pressures right now with the recession impacts causing significant political rifts.  If EADS threatens countries with losing future work it will likely backfire and cause even more political IED's to go "BOOM!"

http://tinyurl.com/dfruky


meanwhile, the Aviation Press is on the case:


"EADS has drawn up a shopping list of A400M contract renegotiation demands - it includes a revised delivery schedule, new delivery standards, slowed production ramp-up, lower penalties and generous allowances for inflation.

Or, the programme could be axed if OCCAR, the procurement agency representing European customer nations, decides to exercise its right, from 1 April, to get out. Swinging that sword of Damocles would force EADS to give back €5.7 billion ($7.27 billion) of advance payments.

It's a threat that EADS should be taking seriously. 

rtr  @  http://tinyurl.com/ddnnmc


----------



## geo

> Swinging that sword of Damocles would force EADS to give back €5.7 billion ($7.27 billion) of advance payments.



I see this point as being the one that will either make or break EADS.
Even if government supported, their cash flow won't be able to handle the 7.27Billion $.  I contend that some countries will say, keep the cash, we're walking... else partner nations would have to pony up the 7.27Billion needed to pay themselves back.


----------



## YZT580

South Africa will be the canary in the mine.  Being the first outside customer for the aircraft, their reaction may be the bellwether that determines whether EADS is truly successful in their revisions or not.  Also, both Germany and England are desperately in need of transport now.  English experience does show that they need the capability but the A400, with the announced weight penalties, is no longer head and shoulders above the C130 in capability: certainly not enough to justify the extra price.  They have given up 5 tonnes of capacity.  As you say, it will be very interesting to see how this plays out especially since both the US and Russia have comparable lift available at bargain basement prices in comparison


----------



## Haletown

Looks like France might have some canaries in its mines as well.

Last week, it was a 3 year delay.  Today it is a four year delay.  Happy St Patrick's Day EADS customers.

"4-Year Delay Expected for A400M
By pierre tran
Published: 17 Mar 15:00 EDT (19:00 GMT)
Print  Print  |  Print  Email

Paris - The A400M will be four years late for operational duty, and France could cut orders for the airlifter as it looks for "gap fillers" to make up for the delay in delivery, procurement Chief Executive Laurent Collet-Billon said March 17.
France is considering all options for plugging the capability gap as it awaits the A400M. (EADS)

An audit by OCCAR, the European arms agency, shows that the A400M's "operational delay" will be four years, Collet-Billon of the Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA) said at a press conference on the DGA's 2008 results. That is longer than the three-year delay EADS previously announced."

rtr @  http://tinyurl.com/dj6vx5

Wonder if EADS still believes it will sell 400+  A400M's in North America like it stated in its Sales Forecast last year.

I guess when you are staring at a cliff edge, you just have to believe.


----------



## Haletown

so last month they "revealed" it was overweight.  Potentially big issue for the mission profile for this aircraft.

Now the first hint the engines aren't burn'n & turn'n with as much oooomph as the design calls for.  Not a confirmation, but a strong hint, maybe a trial balloon to get the bad news out gradually ?

"As we have previously reported in these columns, the A400M is also having trouble with the new engines that were specially developed for it. They are not as powerful as they were supposed to be and significantly reduced the aircraft's projected range and cargo-carrying capacity."

http://tinyurl.com/c3dpkd

At this rate it will cost as much as a  C17 and have the range & payload of a Jerc    A perfect compromise aircraft design.

And to think we were pressured into buying into the Program


----------



## time expired

More than 1.8 billion Dollars cost overruns

Two years delivery date delays

Manufacturers missmanagement and failure of the wing structure

The A400M?, no folks the C17,Aviation Week Mar.1993.

Some things never change
                               Regards


----------



## KJK

time expired, I know what you are saying but at least the C 17 used off the shelf engines and some off the shelf avionics. The A400m project can't say that and it is now 4 years behind. 

KJK


----------



## Haletown

jeez that aviation inflation is a bitch . . .    ;D

1993 its $1.8 billion and two years.  

2009 its four years (six if you count the original schedule) and 5.7 Billion Euros . . .   and the clock is still ticking.

Tick tock, tick tock   . . .  I wouldn't even hazard a guess when that clock goes silent.


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... wonder if P&WC might have something sitting on the shelf that could fit the bill ???

Nah - Airbus won't ask


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... wonder if P&WC might have something sitting on the shelf that could fit the bill ???
> 
> Nah - Airbus won't ask



  hmmmmm    a Quad PT 6 mount for each A400M nacelle ?


----------



## YZT580

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5071242/Airbus-admits-it-may-scrap-A400M-military-transport-aircraft-project.html

Airbus themselves are now saying that the A400 is a disaster: and that is from the boss!!  Overweight, underpowered, and in need of a substantial cash transfusion.  Perhaps it will join the Spruce Goose but at any rate, it is beginning to look less and less like you will ever see an A400 coming to a base near you


----------



## Haletown

wow . .   even worse than I thought it would get . . . 

"The aircraft is over-weight, its turbo-prop engines built by Rolls-Royce and France's Snecma are under-powered and there have been serious glitches in the software from MTU Aero Engines.

That is what we know about, but there have also been rumours of serious problems with the navigation software. There have also been huge problems with production integration, with component mismatches between the different satellite manufacturing centres, and a lack of design co-ordination. In other words, there are not the normal "teething troubles" that you get with any new aeroplane. They are systemic problems which strike at the heart of this doomed project.

The final admission of defeat, when it comes, will cost EADS dear. An outright cancellation will mean that it will have to repay €5.7bn in advance fees to its customers, plus as yet unspecified non-delivery penalties.

Political ramification go even further. The A400M was always a political project, aimed at giving the putative European Army its own independent airlift capability, securing political and operational independence from the United States."


more at  . . . 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/crash-and-burn.html


----------



## geo

Haletown,
Correct me if I am wrong but, should EADS cancell the problem and have to repay the advance fees, wouldn't EADS turn around and assess member countries for their "fair" share of the business loss?

EADS is more of a political animal than an independent enterprise & governments will be expected to contribute to the bottom line... I think


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> Haletown,
> Correct me if I am wrong but, should EADS cancell the problem and have to repay the advance fees, wouldn't EADS turn around and assess member countries for their "fair" share of the business loss?
> 
> 
> EADS is more of a political animal than an independent enterprise & governments will be expected to contribute to the bottom line... I think




I think you are correct . . .   the  European taxpayers are the real victims here.  

EADS also gets money via Airbus Commercial by selling civilian airlines so in addition to all the taxpayer money that would be flushed down the toilet on a failed program, there would be some "real" money there as well, I think.


EADS has to be $hurting big time .. .   in addition to the A400M, the A380 might be a magnificent engineering achievement, but it is, and will most likely continue to be, a financial disaster for the company.


----------



## Haletown

ouch !  

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/world/europe/31iht-nato.html


"All production has stopped because the four manufacturers have different designs that have been melded together in an unwieldy compilation. In addition, the fuselage is too heavy, primarily because of measures implemented to compensate for the extreme vibration produced by the high power output of the engines. There were problems too with the electronic control system, again because different manufacturers were involved."


----------



## MarkOttawa

The big boss at EADS responds to Enders:

EADS chief softens line over A400M
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc4deb86-1d5a-11de-9eb3-00144feabdc0.html



> EADS chief softens line over A400M
> 
> EADS is prepared to accept a limited cut in orders for the A400M military transport plane, in a bid to keep Europe’s biggest defence contract alive as government clients grow restless over rising costs and long delays.
> 
> Louis Gallois, EADS chief executive [Airbus is part of EADS], said for the first time that a l*imited reduction in orders would be “manageable” for the Franco-German aerospace group* [emphasis added].
> 
> However, he said any significant cut would have “an impact on the price of the planes” – a clear signal to the seven governments that launched the troublesome €20bn project in 2003 that they should not push too hard for concessions.
> 
> Mr Gallois’ comments came as EADS sought to reassure customers and the market that it remained committed to the A400M programme, already €2bn over budget and three years late.
> 
> Doubts over EADS’s determination to continue with the programme were raised at the weekend by Tom Enders, head of the group’s aircraft arm Airbus, who suggested in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,616296-2,00.html
> that he would rather scrap the programme than continue under the current contract...
> 
> This month, the governments agreed to a three-month moratorium on cancellations from today to allow the talks to go on.
> 
> But talks come as the enthusiasm of some of the original customers – notably Germany and the UK – for the aircraft may be waning.
> 
> Mr Gallois said on Monday he was confident a solution would be found. The EADS chief appears to be betting that politicians will put pressure on defence ministries to resolve the disagreements over penalties to preserve jobs in a highly sensitive sector.
> 
> “This programme is going to fly because the defence and industrial challenges are considerable,” he said. “They need this plane and it is also about 40,000 highly qualified jobs in Europe. We have to find a solution together.”
> 
> Nonetheless, the UK government, which ordered 25 aircraft and urgently needs a new transport aircraft for operations in Afghanistan, increased pressure on EADS on Monday, warning it would “not be content with a gap in capability”.
> 
> John Hutton, secretary of state for defence, told MPs the delays were a “matter of extreme regret” that posed “very serious questions” about the future of the UK’s military logistics capabilities.
> 
> He said the government would decide whether to go ahead with the programme at the beginning of July but warned: “We will not be content with a gap in capability.” The UK is considering options to bridge the delivery gap, including extending the out-of-service dates of the ageing C-130 Hercules aircraft, and buying more C-17s from Boeing, the US jetmaker.
> 
> Mr Gallois said he expected Airbus to deliver a new timetable to customers after agreeing a delivery date for the propulsion system software, known as Fadec.



Slowly, slowly twisting...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

this has to hurt Euro pride . . .  


"France is believed to have officially requested pricing and availability data on Boeing's C-17 strategic transport to bridge a capability gap caused by development delays to the Airbus Military A400M.

Defence ministry officials wrote to the US Air Force on 25 March enquiring about a possible future acquisition of three C-17s, says an industry source. It is unclear whether Paris could be interested in options on an interim lease agreement or a direct purchase"

http://tinyurl.com/cc3fad


----------



## geo

France is / was on the hook for some 50 x A400s.
Their fleet of Transall airtransporters are something like 40 yrs old
http://www.opex360.com/2009/01/12/les-transall-en-ont-encore-pour-3-ans-de-service-voire-plus/
They expect a minimum of 3 more years before anything more happens on the A400 front - so YES, it makes perfect sense for them to go shopping at Boeing for some new C17s


----------



## geo

France is retiring something like 3 Transalls each year.
Here are a couple of pics of one partly dissasembled one going to the boneyard

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2009/03/cest-ainsi-que.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good summary from _The Economist_:

Heavy going
The future of Europe’s high-tech military transport hangs in the balance
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13447375

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Maybe this guy should write about our acquisition process, maybe the JSS, or Jercs or Chinooks,or ???



"This smug, overpaid, cerebrally-challenged excuse for a human being has the unmitigated gall to tell us that the heap of machinery he is trying to palm off as an aeroplane should be kept going because 40,000 jobs in Europe are directly linked to the project, including 15,000 in Spain. "You can't just look at the plane as a product," he says.

Notwithstanding that any aerospace manufacturer who calls an aircraft a "plane" should not be allowed to live, what this human garbage needs to understand is that the A400M is a product, a machine that is supposed to do things, very specific things, one of which is to fly. It is not a job creation scheme for euroweenies. Furthermore, it is a product that was promised by his dismal excuse for a company and one which it has singularly failed to deliver.

"Are budget restrictions going to put at risk the programme, which still needs investment?" Enders asks the Spanish newspaper ABC. "It means asking if Europe is prepared to not go ahead with the A400M and what alternatives there are."

Wrong questions. "Europe" is not an entity – it is a continent. The people who have the misfortune to be saddled with this overpriced, non-performing heap of junk are soldiers, and they need military airlift, not computer-generated pictures. If he can't deliver – and it is very clear that he cannot – then there are companies that can – on time, to price and to specification.

That is the crunch. It is about time the defence contracting industry woke up and smelt the coffee. The purpose of military equipment is to equip the military, for the sole purpose of enabling that said military to do its job. It is not there for any other purpose and, if the industry cannot deliver, on time, to price and to specification, then it needs to go to the wall.



rtr @   http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/04/let-it-fail.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Recent developments:

April 17:

Boeing lurks as A400M flails
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9222



> As the A400M programme continues to struggle with delays and cost overruns while making pleas for more money from prospective buyers, Boeing is quietly waiting in the wings, hoping to secure any business that departs EADS.
> 
> Nowhere was this more evident than at a NATO summit earlier this month when French defence officials enquired with Boeing about the potential purchase of several C-17s. The French insist that they are committed to the A400M programme, but the possibility of a reduced order is more likely now than a year ago.
> 
> Boeing executives in recent months have discussed publicly how quickly they could deliver C-17s.
> 
> French procurement officials admitted that talks were taking place with Boeing over the C-17 but that other options were being reviewed as well.
> 
> "There is an operational gap for military transport and the French defence ministry is looking forward and studying all the transitional solutions. The C-17 is one of them, but there are several other options and nothing is decided at the moment," the DGA, France's defence procurement arm, said in a statement recently.
> 
> South Africa, another partner in the A400M programme has confirmed that it too is reviewing the purchase of C-17s along with the possible purchase of Russian aircraft or the Brazilian C-390. Frustration is growing in their defence ministry over the lengthy delays.
> 
> Britain has not said whether it will ditch the A400M for the C-17 or another option, but the French and South African leanings will surely play a role. The RAF has confirmed in recent months that any contingency plan if the A400M fails would include the purchase of C-17s and C-130s.
> 
> France's open discussions with Boeing and South Africa's open hostility towards the troubled A400M may have created an opening for Britain to begin purchasing talks with Boeing without sharp criticism from EU partners.
> 
> The company may be the only winner from the A400M programme.



April 23:

Boeing expects 'significant' C-17 orders
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090423.RTICKERA23ART1935-5/TPStory/TPBusiness/America/



> Boeing Co. BA-N expects to win orders for a "significant" number of C-17 transport aircraft this year from international customers, countering declining interest from the U.S. military. "I think we'll see decisions by a number of customers in the near term, by the end of this year," Boeing Integrated Defense Systems president Jim Albaugh said. "We're not talking one or two airplanes; we're talking a significant number of airplanes." Boeing C-17s are also used by the U.K., Canadian and Australian militaries to transport troops and equipment. BA (NYSE) rose 65 cents to $37.30.



April 21:

EADS gets three-month moratorium on A400M
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSLL9993520090421



> Seven countries have signed a three-month moratorium on the A400M military plane, a French Defence Ministry spokesman confirmed on Tuesday, formalising a reprieve which was offered to planemaker Airbus last month.
> 
> Seven countries -- Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and non-EU member Turkey -- had in March agreed a three-month moratorium to prevent automatic cancellation of the 20 billion euro ($25.81 billion) contract.
> 
> For Airbus, which is owned by EADS, the moratorium is a reprieve amid a delay in delivery of the A400M military transport plane, with governments deliberating whether to scrap Europe's biggest arms project.
> 
> The seven countries have ordered a total of 180 of the A400M planes, and some countries, notably Germany and Britain, have expressed anger over delays of 3-4 years on the delivery of the plane, which could cause billions of euros in penalties.



April 23:

MPs criticise MoD over A400M
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9267



> MPs have turned up the heat on the government over the troubled A400M programme, demanding that it be scrapped in an effort to help the MoD's long term procurement budget.
> 
> The programme is already four years late and will most likely create a huge gap in the MoD's strategic airlift capability.
> 
> MPs used a debate in the Commons on defence procurement to express their frustrations with the government over the stalled programme.
> 
> Conservative MP Ben Wallace gave the most blistering attack saying that there was no need for the project in the current MoD budget.
> 
> "The only defence for continuing to purchase it that I can see at the moment came from the French Defence Minister when he gave evidence to the Senate in March. He said, "We have to have it, because we must have some competition for the Hercules." That was the only answer," Wallace said.
> 
> Bernard Jenkin, a member of the select committee said that figures he uncovered showed that the MoD would have gotten better value for money from another aircraft.
> 
> "The failures of the Ministry of Defence's procurement programme are manifold and too numerous to discuss in detail," he said
> 
> Jenkin pointed out that like the Eurofighter Typhoon programme which is also a pan European programme, the A400M is in trouble because of international political compromises which almost never benefit Britain.
> 
> According to figures he uncovered from the MoD, the ministry has already spent £564m on the programme and is due to spend a further £1.5bn in the next three years. Buying 25 C-130s at a cost of £1.1bn would have saved the MoD considerable amounts of money he said.
> 
> Other MPs were equally angry over the delays and costs.
> 
> "[Money] has been wasted on the likely-to-be-aborted A400M, and the grand total runs into megabucks. Such expenditure makes the Army look like poor cousins," Lady Ann Winterton said...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

I've said this before, and I'm no expert in defence procurement, but AIRBUS had the gall to want to sue Canada because we didn't pick this white elephant as our tactical fixed wing aircraft, but went with the tried and true Herc.
I'm very glad to see common sense prevailed in purchasing the C17 and the C-130J. That doesn't always happen, does it?


----------



## YZT580

With regards to Enders though, far from being obnoxious, have you considered that possilbly he wants to enrage the folks enough that they do cancel.  He has a no-win airframe that he cannot possibly price high enough or sell enough to get out from under.  He has a contract that is going to cost him megabucks if he does have to bailout.  By enraging e.g. the Brits and others maybe he can get them to cancel and negotiate the cancellation charges.  He may be very smart and not very stupid and arrogant....naw or maybe....


----------



## Haletown

At the rate this is going the A400M will have the payload of a Jerc, the price of a C17 and a never ending financial support requirement from already over taxed European taxpayers.

I'm waiting for the Ottawa tall foreheads and media types that flogged this dog, back when the Heavy Lift was being procured, to come clean and admit they were sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo   wrong.  

Such brilliance from our vaunted defense journalists who wrote flattering article after flattering article comparing the 17 to the 400 as if the 400 actually existed and various politicians who caved when pressured by Quebec aerospace interests.

They were fools then and are silent fools now, never to be trusted again.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haletown you'll never hear a word from the European loving media or the politicians.


----------



## geo

> Boeing lurks as A400M flails
> http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9222
> 
> Quote
> As the A400M programme continues to struggle with delays and cost overruns while making pleas for more money from prospective buyers, Boeing is quietly waiting in the wings, hoping to secure any business that departs EADS.
> 
> Nowhere was this more evident than at a NATO summit earlier this month when French defence officials enquired with Boeing about the potential purchase of several C-17s. The French insist that they are committed to the A400M programme, but the possibility of a reduced order is more likely now than a year ago.
> 
> Boeing executives in recent months have discussed publicly how quickly they could deliver C-17s.
> 
> French procurement officials admitted that talks were taking place with Boeing over the C-17 but that other options were being reviewed as well.
> 
> "There is an operational gap for military transport and the French defence ministry is looking forward and studying all the transitional solutions. The C-17 is one of them, but there are several other options and nothing is decided at the moment," the DGA, France's defence procurement arm, said in a statement recently.
> 
> South Africa, another partner in the A400M programme has confirmed that it too is reviewing the purchase of C-17s along with the possible purchase of Russian aircraft or the Brazilian C-390. Frustration is growing in their defence ministry over the lengthy delays.
> 
> Britain has not said whether it will ditch the A400M for the C-17 or another option, but the French and South African leanings will surely play a role. The RAF has confirmed in recent months that any contingency plan if the A400M fails would include the purchase of C-17s and C-130s.
> 
> France's open discussions with Boeing and South Africa's open hostility towards the troubled A400M may have created an opening for Britain to begin purchasing talks with Boeing without sharp criticism from EU partners.
> 
> The company may be the only winner from the A400M programme.



Am surprised that anyone would be talking about the Embraer C-390 / KC-390

While the Brazilian gov't has poured a bundle into the project, there are no prototypes flying (from what I can googlefu) making the C-390 no more of a sure thing than the A400M.

I would surmise that countries would be looking for something that is NOW available VS something that may become available in the mid to long term.


----------



## Haletown

The Embraer C-390 / KC-390 qualifies only as a P3

Power
Point
Plane

Nice idea, lotsa water will flow under that bridge between the now plan and the then plane.


----------



## Haletown

The latest missive from EADS.  Nice story, but I have this feeling it was woven around a few facts and then put through the Spin cycle a few dozen times so that it has market appeal.  No mention of the other problems, like a significant over weight issue that compromises mission flexibility.

This is a program that is still in the woods, despite the soothing words from the bosses.

Still looks like the revised program costs will result in a plane that has about half the C17 payload for a price that will be almost the same.




http://tinyurl.com/qy3yyw


----------



## Haletown

missed this , from the comments section on that article.  OUCH!!

""How anyone could have made such an error, nobody is quite sure."

Pretty simple, really. After chasing the moving target of power requirements all the way up from 7,500shp to 11,000shp, two engine consortia that were previously battling each other tooth & nail are suddenly taken into a small room and told to team-up overnight in order to avoid the Canadians getting the contract...leading to a four partner engine consortium spread across six nations which agreed to a development schedule that was never EVER going to happen, even in the best case, unobtainium-enabled scenario.

What could go wrong?"


----------



## geo

order to avoid the Canadians getting the contract...

Who wouda thought?

Still does not mean that they will cooperate any more than before.


----------



## Haletown

Bloomberg Financial Reports via the Seattle Times.

Some serious financial pain, no end in sight.  Gotta be a major hurt for EADS.


"Delays to the A400M resulting from engine-design problems led EADS to record a charge of 120 million euros in the first quarter, and the program remains the company's greatest financial risk, with a "high level of uncertainty," it said.

The transport plane is running at least three years behind a planned delivery schedule, and EADS is negotiating with seven countries that ordered 180 planes in 2003 as it seeks a new contract in which governments would shoulder more of the risk."



rtr  @  http://tinyurl.com/o5mj46


----------



## MarkOttawa

The seemingly endless agony continues --I wonder what the Brits will do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/business/global/12airbus.html?_r=1&ref=business



> France and Germany said Thursday that they were giving themselves another six months to decide whether to proceed with Airbus’s troubled A400M military transport plane, prolonging the agony — and the costs — for the European aircraft manufacturer, which is already grappling with the worst industry downturn in decades.
> 
> The airlifter — the single biggest financial threat to the Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defense & Space — is years behind schedule and has already cost Airbus some €2.4 billion, or $3.4 billion, in write-downs since 2006. The company missed a March 31 deadline for achieving its first flight, and would be exposed to €5.7 billion in penalties if the seven governments backing it decide to write the project off. The deadline for their decision had already been extended once, to the end of this month...
> 
> But it was unclear whether the delay had been cleared with London. Britain’s Ministry of Defense said only that it still expected a decision to be reached by the end of June.
> 
> The A400M’s top four customers have requested 162 of the aircraft, with Germany ordering 60, France 50; Spain 27 and Britain, 25.
> 
> But Britain, its finances severely strained by the financial crisis and a deep recession, has already tried in vain to cut its order for Eurofighter combat jets. If it backed off the A400M, that would raise the cost for the other countries and threaten the project’s viability...
> 
> Airbus looks likely to have to foot the bill for the A400M’s further development, which analysts peg at roughly $2 billion a year. Costs and order numbers are likely to be discussed this weekend at a meeting, called by the French defense minister, Hervé Morin, with fellow ministers from Germany, Spain, Britain, Turkey, Belgium and Luxembourg.
> 
> “I still believe this project is doomed,” said Howard Wheeldon, a senior strategist at the brokerage firm BGCPartners in London, and long a skeptic of the project on the grounds of cost, risk and its lack of export orders.
> 
> Doug McVitie, chief consultant of Arran Aerospace in Dinan, France, calculates the tipping point at roughly 120 of the key 162 orders before the project ceases to be feasible.
> 
> The need to protect some 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in Spain means Madrid, although stung by losing responsibility for the airlifter earlier this year, is likely to reaffirm its order, analysts say...



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More here from Defence Management:



> Calls for six month A400M extension
> Friday, June 12, 2009
> 
> Germany and France have asked for six additional months to sort out the troubled A400M programme.
> 
> French President Nicholas Sarkozy said he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had "decided that it would be good to give ourselves about six more months to continue discussions to find the best solution possible."
> 
> Merkel, who has suddenly become a staunch supporter of the programme in recent days despite ardent opposition from her own defence ministry, concurred, saying: "We are in complete agreement. We will give ourselves a few months and then we'll see."
> 
> Their comments come just weeks before the partnering nations must decide on whether or not to cancel the programme altogether. Under a ruling by Occar, the EU procurement agency, if all of the partnering nations agree to a cancellation, EADS will not be able to seek financial penalties and it will have to pay back up to €5.7bn in early payments made by the partnering nations.
> 
> Each country involved in the programme would have to agree to the moratorium. Britain's defence budget may not allow for an extended delay given the fact that ministers and the defence board are attempting to slash £2bn from next year's budget and crack down on trouble procurement programmes.
> 
> Yesterday the MoD reacted coolly to the comments by Germany and France, maintaining that the original deadline should be observed.
> 
> "A decision is expected to be reached before the end of the current moratorium on the future of the A400M programme," a spokesperson said.
> 
> The British government's recent comments show that it is prepared to walk away from the programme if the delays continue. A six month moratorium on the potential cancellation would bind Britain to the programme and keep it from finding other permanent replacement solutions such as more C-130s and C-17s.
> 
> Recent comments by defence ministers indicate that Britain more than anyone else, simply wants a resolution, rather than seeing the saga continue to drag out through the end of 2009.
> 
> The A400M has been beset by massive engine and design problems and is already scheduled to be delivered at least four years late.
> 
> The other partnering nations besides Britain, France and Germany, are Spain, Turkey, Belgium and Luxemburg.


----------



## Haletown

the money line 

"Airbus looks likely to have to foot the bill"

AIrbus doesn't foot any funding requirements  . . .  they will "foot" the bill by going cap in hand to the governments involved and play the "jobs, jobs, jobs" card.

Actually they will have two caps in hand because they are concurrently going to the Euro taxpayer well for something like $13 billion to do the A350 project.

The Americans now have Government Motors to rival the Euros Government Airframers.

That giant whoooooshing sound is good taxpayer's money going bye-bye

Government subsidies will not play out well in America.  Wanna bet it skewers the A330/MRRT/KC30 as a valid Tanker contender.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown:

Government Motors in action 
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11848:government-motors-in-action&catid=45:-nanny-bastards

Not quite on, er, topic but related.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Thread revival...

Just so the naysayers can be proven wrong about whether we chose the right machine by going with the C-17 - the A400 flew its first test flight *today.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX-kIUYRyDk


----------



## George Wallace

It looks like it has made more flights and covered more territory as "pieces" than it has as an aircraft.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ5E0kfnY5I&feature=related



 ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

In the event, any A400Ms we might have acquired would have been in service well after  (as things now stand)  the end of the CF's Afghan mission.

Great timing or what?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

All of that carbon fibre...

The greenies are going to be really impressed when the first one crashes and burns.


----------



## TCBF

Loachman said:
			
		

> All of that carbon fibre...
> 
> The greenies are going to be really impressed when the first one crashes and burns.



- Yup. Wear a mask if you're downwind - and put a mask on your computers, too!


----------



## ArmyRick

I first heard of this thing in 2003. Glad I wasn't waiting for it anxiously!


----------



## OldSolduer

And Airbus had the temerity to say they were going to sue Canada for damages because the government went with the C-130 vice the A400M.
Whiny Europeans!! >


----------



## sm1lodon

Those scimitar blades seem to be the Latest Word. Wonder why they don't use them on helicopters?


----------



## Loachman

Because helicopters do not have propellers.


----------



## sm1lodon

Ah, but helicopters DO have rotors.

And, of course, not ALL helicopters are without propellers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-56_Cheyenne

Delaying the onset of shock wave formation at the rotor tips might be useful in increasing the top speed of helicoptors, might it not? Because helicopters are usually limited to about 250 mph speeds.

The Osprey has a 315 mph top speed, because it can change its power-to-air interface devices' axis from vertical to horizontal. Perhaps scimitar-shaped blades would raise that top speed even further, because the blades are rather long.


----------



## Jammer

The V-22 does have considerably more powerful engines that can drive the props.
I'm no aeronautical engineer but i do know that the more surface area of a blade, the more energy is going to be required. 
I'll defer to Loachman iRT this.

I think the A-400M is going to have a lot of growing pains, if it even gets to production.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Ah, but helicopters DO have rotors.
> 
> And, of course, not ALL helicopters are without propellers.



oh boy.  Where is that face-palming smiley when you need it?

You do realize that Loachman flies helicopters for a living... and has for a real, real long time?  To presume to tell him what the various "bits" DO might be construed as  a bit... presumptuous, no?


----------



## Loachman

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Ah, but helicopters DO have rotors.



So I've noticed.

They're still not propellers. They are wings, and combine the functions of wings, elevators, ailerons, and propellers. The aerodynamics are a little different from, and much more complex than, independent wings and control surfaces and propellers.



			
				sm1lodon said:
			
		

> And, of course, not ALL helicopters are without propellers.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-56_Cheyenne



And there are exactly how many of those flying around?



			
				sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Delaying the onset of shock wave formation at the rotor tips might be useful in increasing the top speed of helicoptors, might it not?



I doubt it. I'm not a helicopter scientist, but I've never heard of that as a factor. Blade tips do not move that fast, nor do they need to.

Well, perhaps, according to the refs in the following post. I've never had any interest in flying at such speeds. It's much harder to dodge cows.



			
				sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Because helicopters are usually limited to about 250 mph speeds.



Look up "retreating blade stall".

In any case, I see no reason for helicopters to fly that fast in a typical military environment. Typical speeds in a conventional tactical environment are 100 knots tops, and often much slower. High speeds are not required for the short distances usually involved, and reduce agility and reaction time available. Osprey was designed and built for a specific purpose, and not to replace battlefield helicopters. It is entirely unsuitable for that.



			
				sm1lodon said:
			
		

> The Osprey has a 315 mph top speed, because it can change its power-to-air interface devices' axis from vertical to horizontal. Perhaps scimitar-shaped blades would raise that top speed even further, because the blades are rather long.



Perhaps that is not a suitable design in non-propeller-mode.

In any case, that's completely irrelevant for our purposes.


----------



## aesop081

Far from the thread subject but since someone brought up rotor blades and speed :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BERP_rotor
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~leishman/Aero/berp.html


----------



## Journeyman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Far from the thread subject but since someone brought up rotor blades and speed :
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BERP_rotor



...such as the Westland Super Lynx, which holds the helo speed record of just over 400km/hr


----------



## Jammer

...yeah, but that spinny thing on the back LOOKS like a propeller, no?


----------



## sm1lodon

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> oh boy.  Where is that face-palming smiley when you need it?
> 
> You do realize that Loachman flies helicopters for a living... and has for a real, real long time?  To presume to tell him what the various "bits" DO might be construed as  a bit... presumptuous, no?



I wasn't telling anyone what various bits do. I was affirming that though most helicopters DON'T have propellers, they DO have rotors. 

Another reason I figure a scimitar-shaped ROTOR blade might be useful is that if you could create a blade that was capable of being rotated more quickly without the onset of any unwanted transonic behaviors on its way forward, it might be rotating quickly enough that as it went backwards, it would provide sufficient lift at higher airframe speeds to increase the top speed of the helicopter.

I am aware that as velocity in any horizontal vector increases, the effectiveness of the rotor blades being able to create lift as they are on the backwards part of their rotation relative to airflow decreases.

I doubt that it is likely that any kind of rotor blade could be come up with that would allow much higher RPM/average blade speed relative to the airflow as it travels backwards to dramatically impact top speed. But I do not know, and I've never seen anything that indicates anyone has tried that sort of thing.

I've even thought of rotors that have a much larger base than tip so that as the rotor blade is on its way back, the inner portion (nearest the vertical axis) not having enough speed to overcome relative airspeed might not be such a handicap because the air flowing backwards over it would generate some lift. Of course, this could potentially contribute to it producing too much lift going forward, but, being closer to the center of the axis of the rotor, it would not experience a dramatic difference in relative airspeed like the rotor tips do.

I have also considered rotor blades that have a very low-profile supersonic wing design profile so they would provide lift even at transonic speeds relative to the airflow at the outer portions of the blades, while the inner portions of the blades would be designed for subsonic lift.

Someone on here posted that helicopters don't spend much of their time far above 100 mph or so, so it is likely no one really CARES about making a chopper go over 250mph, because that is far outside its operational usefulness envelope, like making a fighter plane able to do mach 5.

But, some ideas I just like to explore because it might have some merit, someday. Everything that is science today was at one time science fiction and someone's (often ridiculed) flight of fancy.

Having an assault rifle that doubles as an espresso maker might be possible, but, WHY? Having a chopper that can actually do 400 mph may even be possible with existing technology, but as our esteemed learned fellow-forum-member on here pointed out, what would be the point?

I don't explore far-out ideas to be controversial or start arguments. I try not to be sarcastic and self-congralutorily witty. I mention stuff because I actually HAVE thought about "why not do it this way?" and can learn from others. Sometimes I offer a summary of what I have learned so anyone who feels so inclined can add whatever they want to it or refute it outright.

Now, to the experienced soldier/pilot/sailor this stuff might look just ridiculously obvious, but, that is why the search function exists, to find the ridiculously obvious, if it already exists here.

And often, just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it would offer any significant improvement over the existing technology, especially when costs of replacing the existing technology so far overshadow the 1% improvement that might available by the new thing.


----------



## hauger

sdpauoiuapdsf said:
			
		

> Someone on here posted that helicopters don't spend much of their time far above 100 mph or so, so it is likely no one really CARES about making a chopper go over 250mph, because that is far outside its operational usefulness envelope, like making a fighter plane able to do mach 5.



First, I know nothing of fling-wing aerodynamics, but where my thoughts went with the whole rotor shape change was to allow faster rotor speeds to increase the max GWT of a machine.  I don't know if if works this way or not, if increased rotor speed allows for greater lift capability.  I gotta go with the thought that if this was beneficial, someone would have incorporated it by now.

I do disagree with the above quote though for in theater ops.  Helo speed can be highly beneficial depending on the employment of the asset.  As an air defense platform (aka: attack helo), speed can be highly beneficial.  A properly armed attack helo capable of speeds between 250 and 300 KIAS at various altitudes are very effective at providing low level harassment of tactical transport ops as well as providing the same ops with useful and beneficial attack coverage.  This is a capability Canada doesn't have, but would be beneficial (although probably not cost effective for what we do).  Apparently there's some issue with escort roles for our Griffon v. the Chinook due to speed.


----------



## Strike

hauger said:
			
		

> Apparently there's some issue with escort roles for our Griffon  *every escort aircraft * v. the Chinook due to speed.



That's a little closer to the truth.


----------



## a_majoor

Higher speeds are possible with "compound aircraft", but these simply shift the lifting function to wings during forward flight, and the unloaded rotor is along for the ride somewhat like an autogyro.

If you look at pictures of the AH-56 Cheyenne you will notice the rather prominent wings, and the MI 24 Hind also had fairly large wings, which makes me think it's high forward speed was also a result of flying like a compound aircraft with an unloaded rotor.

As noted, escorting conventional transport helicopters like Chinooks, Griffons or Blackhawks might be a bit difficult with large mismatches in performance. If your escort aircraft are AH-56's, then your transports should be Fairey "Rotodynes". 

Since helicopter rotors fulfill different functions than a propeller, simply translating what works in one environment does not necessarily work in another.


----------



## Loachman

hauger said:
			
		

> First, I know nothing of fling-wing aerodynamics,



No comment required.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> but where my thoughts went with the whole rotor shape change was to allow faster rotor speeds to increase the max GWT of a machine.  I don't know if if works this way or not, if increased rotor speed allows for greater lift capability.



"Rotor shape change" would have little to do with rotor speeds.

Rotors are larger and have more mass than propellers - some amount of weight is necessary in order to preserve rotor RPM in the final stages of an autorotation aside from the natural mass - hence any additional speed generates more stress on the rotor system. Better balance is also required as things speed up.

There are other ways to influence lift: aerofoil shape, blade length and chord, blade pitch, number of blades etcetera.

Rotor blades are wings. Aside from the obvious fact that they rotate in order to generate lift rather than move along with all other parts of the airframe on a seized-wing aircraft, every point along the blade is moving through the air at a different speed, and corresponding points along other blades are often, but not always, moving through the air at different speeds. This is why one can see variations in pitch, or a twist, along a blade's length.

The Griffon's blades are described by Bell as "sculpted", as the aerofoil and chord vary along the length as well as the pitch. This is achievable as the blades are moulded synthetics rather than metal.

As the disc is tilted in order to split the more-or-less vertical lift vector of a hovering helicopter into vertical and horizontal (thrust) vectors, the airflow through the rotor changes significantly from something equivalent to a propeller's (straight through, but in our case downwards) into an angled and then largely sideways flow.

This is extremely simplified, of course. I know enough to operate the things; designing them is well outside of my lane.

Lift is increased by increasing the pitch of the blades collectively. This increases drag on the blades, and slows them down. Constant rotor RPM is maintained by working the engine(s) harder. At some point, the engine(s) run out of additional steam and any further increase in pitch causes rotor RPM to droop. Yes, more powerful engines could be installed, but there is always a trade-off - expense, weight, size, increased fuel consumption etcetera. 

Higher ambient air temperature causes engines (and other dynamic components) to run significantly hotter, and temperature limits may be reached before power limits. It also makes the air less dense, degrading rotor performance.

Higher operating altitudes also degrade performance, and KAF is about 3000 feet above sea level.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> I gotta go with the thought that if this was beneficial, someone would have incorporated it by now.



Yes. This is pretty much why I don't make design suggestions on Nuclear Reactors.ca.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> I do disagree with the above quote though for in theater ops.



Based upon what experience? Add "operations" to your opening statement.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> Helo speed can be highly beneficial depending on the employment of the asset.



Not much. Helicopters travel relatively short distances in tactical operations, and increasing speed will, at best, only shave a couple of minutes off of flight times over those distances. Most missions in our present theatre would be less than 50-60 km from KAF, which at 100 knots is less than twenty minutes.

While boosting theoretical max speeds may look nice on the shiney brochures, they are largely irrelevant when flying around with doors open and things hanging off of the sides or bottom, like guns, missiles, and slung loads.

You could do a Tim Allen and make a Leopard capable of doing 150 km/hr if you wanted to waste enough money and burn enough fuel, but why? Even if there was some small and occasional benefit to getting to places quicker by road, it's not moving any quicker cross-country without disrupting the internal organs of the crew and tactical movement is just not feasible.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> As an air defense platform (aka: attack helo),



Attack hels are _*not*_ "air defence platforms". They are attack hels. They make things on the _*ground*_ blow up, burn, and bleed.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> speed can be highly beneficial.



If it was, you'd still have to solve the other limiting factors previously mentioned, and even if that was achievable with current technology, it would most likely impose other limitations elsewhere. Like every single other military machine, helicopters have their strengths and weaknesses. They complement other vehicles and aircraft, which in turn complement them. Each machine has been optimized for its intended role.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> A properly armed attack helo capable of speeds between 250 and 300 KIAS at various altitudes are very effective at providing low level harassment of tactical transport ops as well as providing the same ops with useful and beneficial attack coverage.



Are you refering to enemy or friendly ops, or both, and rotary- or seized-wing transport ops (the implication of your terminology would indicate the latter to me)?

This is not the role of AHs, and "harassment" of aircraft is not a useful activity compared to shooting them down.

Friendly transport aircraft would be escorted/protected by fighters, and enemy ones would be attacked by fighters and ground-based air defence systems. They exist for that purpose, among others.

AHs would be busy with the roles for which they are designed. To apply them to other jobs would require more of them anyway, so why not simply use something actually designed for the job?

Higher speeds add nothing to shooting ground targets, anymore than running around a target helps shooting at it with a rifle.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> This is a capability Canada doesn't have,



CF18.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> Apparently there's some issue with escort roles for our Griffon v. the Chinook due to speed.



As pointed out by Strike, _*no*_ AH can keep up to a Chinook. None were ever designed for that role, as there was never any requirement until now. So the big fat helicopter goes a little slower, and it takes four or five minutes longer to get where it's going. In the overall scheme of things, that's not usually a big deal.

In less permissive environments, for which all battlefield helicopters have been designed, helicopters operate at low level around 100 knots or less as it's damned difficult to follow contours, dodge wires, trees, and cows, and navigate at any higher speed at an altitude that gives cover and concealment. Chinook, doctrinally, would fly from Corps areas to Division or Brigade areas and no further forward, so lower altitudes are not required and higher speeds are feasible. Its tactical limit was a minimum altitude of fifty feet. AH escort would have been extremely rare, just as truck convoys would not be provided with AFV escorts, as it was not necessary. There was no more tactical movement for Chinook than there was for HLVW.

Kiowa's tactical limits were "skids clear of ground and one-half rotor diameter from vertical obstacles". Speed was adjusted to match the necessary altitude. When I was using every little fold in the ground or shrubbery for concealment, I'd be just creeping along. At four feet, I'd be up to 40 to 60 knots tops. Griffon's (and Twin Huey's) minimum altitude is fifteen feet above obstacles and one-half rotor diameter, although we now have lower limits (four feet) at drastically reduced speeds (essentially taxiing) for certain missions. Griffon lacks the visibility and agility of Kiowa, hence lower is not a good idea. Speeds of 90 to 100 knots are certainly suitable for 15 to 50 feet above obstacles, which generally allows sufficient concealment for airmobile ops.

Faster just makes one go higher, which makes one more vulnerable.

Permissive environments allow other methods of operation (such as staying above effective small arms range), wherein, as we have seen, the characteristics of different helicopters may not be "ideal".

Any helicopter designed specifically for current ops may well be less than ideal for more traditional roles, and we could find ourselves back in that type of environment at any point in the future. We have bought a fair amount of ground equipment specifically for our current theatre that may be less than fully useful in the future also. Nothing does everything for everyone everywhere every time. That's life.


----------



## hauger

I really don't want to get into an "I'm smarter than you" contest, because on these boards they tend to devolve into harshness, and since I'm not a tactical god nor a high level big picture general, it's not worth the pokey-chest argument.

Having said that, here's some stuff I know.  CF-18's do not provide escort to low level tactical transport.  At best they provide top cover and can "leave the fight" (aka: come low) to provide some ground strike, but at the cost of loosing all their energy and needing to burn a tank of gas to get back high.  A better escort is the A-10.

What I do know is if a 130 meets an enemy chopper capable of 100 kts, it's not that big of a deal.  If same 130 meets a Hind, that's bad news for the 130.  It's hard to outrun a bad news helo if your speed delta is only 50 kts.  Of course the Hind isn't out looking for 130's, but if it comes across one, it has the smash to cause it some pain.

Of course, none of this is important if we fight wars with no airborne threat (Afghanistan).  Then fighters are free to come low all they want, and we don't have to worry about our trash haulers having to outrun unfriendly helicopters.


----------



## George Wallace

hauger

Do you have a Money Tree in your back yard?


----------



## Jammer

Hauger

WTF is your post about?
Military helos ARE capable of 100+ KIAS, easily.
F-18s DO CAS!! Quite well I might say so.
Any armed helo vs C-130 = disaster for Herky Bird.

Thanks for the lesson though

FAIL!


----------



## hauger

George Wallace said:
			
		

> hauger
> 
> Do you have a Money Tree in your back yard?



Wait, what?

Jammer, I was responding to Loachman.  Yes, Mil. helo's can do 100kts +, but I'm pretty confident a 130 can DM around an armed Griffon (which isn't in the air to hunt transports to begin with). 

In a normal air war, a fighters primary job is air superiority against enemy fighters.  In that sense, altitude = energy = advantage.  Giving up all that altitude to deal with a transport at 200 feet is not a target the fighter's there to deal with and is not something most fighters would be looking for, let alone go after since it means giving up so much energy (aka: altitude) to deal with.   There's a reason why maple & red flag rates of C-130's being "shot down" by fighters is very low.  While CF-18s do provide CAS, that is not their primary design.

My whole point behind mentioning the Hind (or the Apache) was just to point out that there is a benefit to having faster helicopters.  Granted, not in the traditional employment of them, but in a CAS role.   Canada can't and shouldn't afford them though simply because we have other, more pressing issues to deal with and the cost/benefit isn't there.

The original post though had to do with some basic aerodynamics of rotor design.  Innocently enough I was asking if a faster rotor speed equaled greater lift capabilities.  Honestly, I could care less, I don't fly helicopters.  Loachman liked to point out that rotors aren't props (no kidding, but I guess it's a common question and probably gets annoying after a while) and have different design functions.  I get that.   

Thanks for the lovely "FAIL" there Jammer.  I'm still pretty confident though that I have a bit of knowledge of what I'm talking about.  Oh, "Any armed helo vs C-130 = disaster for Herky Bird." isn't exactly true.  Maybe you should have a sit down with a TAL guy and discuss a bit.


----------



## Loachman

Jammer said:
			
		

> Military helos ARE capable of 100+ KIAS, easily.



Some not by much, and as I have said, practical speeds depend upon configuration, among other factors.



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Any armed helo vs C-130 = disaster for Herky Bird.



Hardly.


----------



## SupersonicMax

hauger,

Fighter-type aircraft can have a multitude of roles, even though they are called "fighters".  The name doesn't mean their only role is Air Superiority.  In fact, the F-18 was designed as a multi-role platform.  The F-15E doesn't even have and Air-to-Air role, yet, we call it a "fighter".  Sure some argue that it's a "strike fighter", but I think it's fair to say it's not a good "fighter" but does extremely well in the "strike" portion.  

Coming back to the F-18, it was designed (amongst other missions) to be loaded with bombs and A-A weapons, fight its way into a target area, bomb the shit out of that target then fight its way back out.  Air Interdiction type mission.  The design was proven effective during Gulf War I.  So, it can go deep into enemy territory, drop bombs and come back.  I'm sure if it can do that, it can do it, so to speak, close to or on the FEBA (in other words, it can do CAS).  It has been proven, again, in Afghanistan (not with ours, but other countries). In fact, CAS training happens here in Canada too.  And I can tell you that with the sensors it has, it can do a hell of a good job.  

So, a long story short, CAS has become a major point of interest, as far as I can understand, in the fighter force.

As far as C-130 vs Mi-24, unless the Hind has a shot forward of the 3/9 line of the Herc, I have a hard time seeing how it can generate enough closure to get a good shot from the stern.  But again, I'm not an expert in eighter helos or transport.


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> In a normal air war,



 :



> a fighters primary job is air superiority against enemy fighters.



An over-generalization. Not all fighters have that job or even that capability.



> In that sense, altitude = energy = advantage.



Generaly speaking, yes.



> Giving up all that altitude to deal with a transport at 200 feet is not a target the fighter's there to deal with and is not something most fighters would be looking for, let alone go after since it means giving up so much energy (aka: altitude) to deal with.



Mission dependent. 



> There's a reason why maple & red flag rates of C-130's being "shot down" by fighters is very low.



MF/RF are not real life. Close but.......



> While CF-18s do provide CAS, that is not their primary design.



As a purposely designed multi-role fighter, the CF-18, i would say, has ground support as a primary design.

You should talk to commander 1 Cdn Air Div about where A-G sits on his priority list for the 18s tasks.


----------



## Jammer

Not to say that Hinds and the like are going to chase around C-130s looking to shoot them down, but they can be equipped with AA missiles to make up for the loss of pursuit speed. 

Hauger,
Why would a Griffon want to shoot down a transport A/C?


----------



## hauger

AARRGG.  

Okay, keep on topic here, does a faster rotor speed = greater lift capability?  It goes back to someone else's question of whether a blade change would allow the rotor to travel faster before the tips approach supersonic. Every other "argument" is nit picking and posturing.

Jammer, try and keep up here.  A griffon would not want to shoot down a 130, you, not I, suggested that it could easily do the job though.  Yep, AA missiles are bad news, but not that bad.  They're not much worse than MANPADS or SAMs, the main difference is the highly mobile Hind can stick with the 130 for a second shot a bit easier than a SAM site can.  Again though, I don't really care about the gritty details of what or why, the point was to illustrate one battlefield reason why having a helicopter with a bit more smash might be useful.

I'm not here to argue whether the CF-18 is good down low or not.  The 18 of course is being used extensively in A-G, it's a really good bomber for that and can hit targets quite well.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Jammer said:
			
		

> Not to say that Hinds and the like are going to chase around C-130s looking to shoot them down, but they can be equipped with AA missiles to make up for the loss of pursuit speed.



Same things apply.  With 0 Aspect on the other airplane and opening range, the weapon engagement zone is reduced drasticaly.  It depends on the opening rate for sure and obviously the range, but I don't see how a Hind could get that close behind, unless the Hind is totally aware of the Herc, which is unlikely since he probably has other things to care about (ie: an other mission) and the Herc is totally unawared of the Hind.


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> Every other "argument" is nit picking and posturing.



Don't look now but you are arguing and posturing.



> a bit easier than a SAM site can.



Thats very debatable.




> I'm not here to argue whether the CF-18 is good down low or not.



Could have fooled me.


----------



## a_majoor

Running a rotor at a higher RPM may *not* generate more lift in flight, indeed, it may generate enough unbalanced lift to damage the rotor head (generally not considered a good idea within the helicopter community).

More lift can be generated with clever aerodynamics (the oddly shaped ends of modern helicopter rotors is one example), or simple brute force approaches like going from 2 to 4 or even 5 bladed rotors, with the increasing complexity of the rotor head being part of the price you pay.

Since helicopters operate in different flight regimes than aircraft, they need different "tricks". Fast movers trade energy for speed, most helicopters operating in armed environments move in "rotor defilade" and need huge amounts of reserve power to "pop up" and fire on the target. From being a passenger on troop carrying Iroquois helicopters back in the day, lots of reserve power also makes for very exciting low level flying as well, such as rapid pull-ups and push-overs when crossing roads [in order to clear the telephone and utility lines]. (Strangely, Griffen pilots never seem to do those hair raising troop lifts anymore).

If a Hind driver wanted to use his high forward speed to destroy a C-130, his best bet would be to zoom over the airfield and rocket the transports on the ground.

Want to read more speculation about future aviation trends? Try here.


----------



## Loachman

hauger said:
			
		

> AARRGG.



That sounds about how a few of us are feeling, alright.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> Okay, keep on topic here,



Right. Anybody hear anything more about the A400M lately?



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> does a faster rotor speed = greater lift capability?



Sure, in theory. Then there's reality, as I addressed earlier:



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Rotors are larger and have more mass than propellers - some amount of weight is necessary in order to preserve rotor RPM in the final stages of an autorotation aside from the natural mass - hence any additional speed generates more stress on the rotor system. Better balance is also required as things speed up.



Thucydides understands this.

There are better ways to increase lift, as I outlined, but there is more than lift involved unless all that you want to do is hover over one spot for a full fuel load.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> Every other "argument" is nit picking and posturing.



Like all of the other ones that you've thrown about?



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> Jammer, try and keep up here.



Hauger, try and keep up here. Read what you've written, sometimes more than once, and the responses received.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> A griffon would not want to shoot down a 130, you, not I, suggested that it could easily do the job though.





			
				hauger said:
			
		

> A properly armed attack helo capable of speeds between 250 and 300 KIAS at various altitudes are very effective at providing low level harassment of tactical transport ops as well as providing the same ops with useful and beneficial attack coverage.



Granted, you did not state Griffon (It's a proper noun, so capitalized by the way), but you did make a suggestion regarding helicopters - optimized for certain roles for which they are suitable - and employment thereof in this other role, for which they are _*not*_ suitable and which would *take them away from their intended role* for no valid reason. Again, this has been addressed.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> the main difference is the highly mobile Hind can stick with the 130 for a second shot a bit easier than a SAM site can.



If there was only _*one*_ SAM site _*anywhere*_ on the ground.

Beyond its requirement to keep up with its own forces while they are on the move, why would a SAM site need to "stick with" any target? The SAM concept involves layering of weapons in depth across the whole battlefield. There are low altitude and short-range systems and long-range high-altitude systems in that mix. There are IR- and radar-guided systems. A target will move into the range of at least one system, and as it moves out of range of that one/those (presuming that it still survives), it has already moved into the range of at least one more. SAM systems just lie in wait while their intended targets come to them. That is far more effective and cost-effective than having some ill-suited helicopters flashing about just in case enemy transport aircraft bumble overhead, while sacrificing their designed operational capabilities. They'd be limited to short-range IR-guided systems only anyway. Fighters are far more effective at shooting down things in the air than helicopters.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> First, I know nothing of fling-wing aerodynamics



That was the last worthwhile thing that you said. You've just been pissing into the wind since.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How far are the French (indeed Germans, I have the impression the Brits would be happy  to wave goodbye) willing to go to save the thang?

Murky Future for the A400M
Germany Remains Stubborn in Airbus Debate
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,670423,00.html#ref=nlint



> Germany has dug in its heels in the face of Airbus demands for a further 5 billion euros to cover cost overruns in the development of the military transport plane A400M. A Defense Ministry official has said that Berlin will pay no more than is called for by the contract -- a position which could torpedo the project.
> 
> Even as Airbus warns that the fate of the military transport plane A400M hangs in the balance, Germany continues to reject demands from the company for more help with the massive cost overruns that have struck the project.
> 
> According to a report in the business daily Handelsblatt on Wednesday, the Defense Ministry in Berlin remains unwilling to provide Airbus with more than a further €650 million to cover inflation and surcharges as outlined in the purchase contract. Airbus, however, is calling on its European customers to cover 50 percent of the €11 billion in cost overruns.
> 
> "We will definitely not pay more than the €650 million in extra costs called for by the escalation clause in the contract," one unnamed Defense Ministry official told Handelsblatt. "It is nice that the airplane took its maiden flight in Seville," added Defense Ministry spokesman Holger Neumann, referring to last month's first test flight. "But that didn't fulfil a single condition of the agreement."
> 
> Plans to Scrap the Project
> 
> The Defense Ministry comments come a day after the Financial Times Deutschland reported that Airbus head Thomas Enders said over the Christmas holidays that he no longer believes the project will ever be successfully brought to fruition. Airbus has developed contingency plans to scrap the project should its European customers -- including Germany, France, Great Britain, Spain, Turkey, Belgium and Luxembourg -- not agree to renegotiate the contract. Talks are scheduled throughout January.
> 
> Airbus reinforced its warning on Wednesday, with a company spokesman telling Handelsblatt that "the project is impossible given the current contractual conditions. We need a financially sensible solution right away."..
> 
> Other European countries involved in the talks, including France and Great Britain [!?!], have shown a greater willingness to find a compromise than Germany. "I am confident because this is about the interests of European industry," said French Defense Minister Herve Morin on French television station BFM on Wednesday...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Sounds like Boeing has an opportunity to get in a final C-17 run if they can work fast and cheap...


----------



## KJK

Another headache for the A400M's export chances assuming the project carries on, the Kawaski C-X now XC-2 flew this week. 37 ton payload, faster and much cheaper, apparently about 85 million USD per unit. The Japanese claim that development costs are 3.8 billion USD which is about 10% of the cost of Airbus' headache to date. I realize Japan cannot export military equipment but Kawaski has said there will be a civvie version as well.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a49835293-e38b-4ebb-9a0b-c463eddc7b67&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

It should be a nice aircraft for a reasonable price.

KJK


----------



## Bearpaw

Here is an URL about an impending showdown between EADS and the A400M customers:

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Aerospace_chief_calls_for_clarity_on_new_transport_plane_999.html


Bearpaw


----------



## Jammer

...or the An-70...tested and ready for production.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The rescue:
  	
A400M: The Bailout Package
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6a502979-95c7-491b-a7ce-0368f1d02ae1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



> After a year of talks, we now have the agreement between EADS and A400M-buying governments on how to cover the multi-billion euro cost overrun on the formerly 20 billion euro military transport program.
> 
> Under the terms just announced, governments will put in another 3.5 billion euros, at least. Most of that, 2 billion euros, is a direct adjustment to the scope of the contract. Another 1.5 billion is effectively treated as money made available now that would be recouped as A400M export contracts are booked. Presumably if exports don't cover the total, it is money simply lost to the taxpayer.
> 
> Governments will also provide accelerated pre-delivery payments through 2014. That will help EADS's cash flow at a time the company also needs financial resources for various other efforts, including the increasing development bill associated with the A350 twin-widebody.
> 
> EADS is having to take another earnings charge, although the 1.8 billion euros to be booked when earnings are released next week is less than expected.
> 
> There are still some issues to be worked out, but the big issues now appear settled.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## captloadie

I had the opportunity to visit the final assembly line in Seville, Spain last week and have to say that, if and when it goes into full production, it will be a slick operation. At full capacity, they say they can turn out an aircraft every 13 days, from start to finish, including testing. The whole aircraft is modular, with the different pieces being fully completed, wired and tested before arrival. They then plug them together, perform final functionality tests, and off it goes to the customer. Another interesting method there are using for testing is they are building 5 protypes (three are already completed) and are testing different aspects on each aircraft. #1 (which flew the initial flight tests) is being used to test flight controls and characteristics. #2 is being used for testing the cargo compartment items, #3 is for engines and fuel systems, #4 and #6 (#5 for some reason was started then scrapped), are testing other systems. They plan to have 35,000 flight hours flown between the five aircraft with the thinking being that any problems/changes that are required will be found before full production on #7 begins. 

Scheduled first delivery is currently set for 2013.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More bad news for the A400M. Apparently the Brits are cutting the number of aircraft they are ordering (from 25 to 22) and its possible that other countries may also follow suite. Full story courtesy of  ARES:  

*"Who Will Cut A400M Next?
Posted by Robert Wall at 3/29/2010 10:31 AM CDT 

The U.K. decision to cut its A400M procurement from 25 units to 22 leaves plenty of room for other buyers to cut their numbers.
When EADS and the partner nations agreed to the outlines for a new contract - to deal with the billion euros in cost overruns - industry said partners could cut the planned buy of 180 units by 10 aircraft without pricing being affected. The U.K. decision to take three of those cuts leaves margin for others to do the same.

Germany, the largest A400M customer, for instance, has said it wants to reduce its total. Germany is on the books to take 60 A400Ms and, unless it breaks the spirit of the March agreement with industry, will remain the largest customer for the European airlifter.

France, the second largest customer and first country that will operate the A400M, has said it will stick to its buy of 50 aircraft.
The U.K. situation, of course, is somewhat different than many other A400M buyers, since London has plenty of airlift options, given it is a C-130J and C-17 operator. French and German airlift hopes are tied much more closely to the A400M." *


----------



## Haletown

I just got back from Euroland and passed through Toulouse.  A quick trip to the airport and believe it or not, I actually saw an A400, with all four props turning and the damn thing was actually moving . . .  mind you a very slow taxi.

So the thing actually exists.

sarc off


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> the damn thing was actually moving . . .  mind you a very slow taxi.
> 
> So the thing actually exists.



You mean all the flights it has done so far, all the published photographs of it in flight and its recent apearence at ILA 2010 wasnt convincing enough ?

How about the fact that the second A400M, number MSN002, flew for the first time on April 8th ?

What you may have seen MSN001 which is supposed to fly test this summer from Toulouse or more likely MSN003, which should be starting test flights this summer as well, if it has not already.


----------



## Haletown

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You mean all the flights it has done so far, all the published photographs of it in flight and its recent apearence at ILA 2010 wasnt convincing enough ?
> 
> How about the fact that the second A400M, number MSN002, flew for the first time on April 8th ?
> 
> What you may have seen MSN001 which is supposed to fly test this summer from Toulouse or more likely MSN003, which should be starting test flights this summer as well, if it has not already.



ergo the "sarc off"


----------



## Haletown

That sound you hear is billions of Euros flushing down some sewer . . . .

Soooooooooooooooooooooo  glad we have 17's & Jercs and the government didn't get stampeded into buying  these.

"Aug 6 (Reuters) - Airbus said on Friday that further cuts in orders for its A400M military transport planes, as one politician from Germany's ruling coalition suggested this week, would mean production would no longer be worthwhile.

The manufacturer cannot afford to build fewer than 170 of the A400M planes, a company spokesman said on Friday after a German politician called for a further cut in Germany's order.

"There would be no economic foundation for the A400M programme with under 170 planes," an Airbus spokesman said

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6751LJ20100806?feedType=RSS&feedName=tnBasicIndustries-SP


----------



## hauger

Haletown said:
			
		

> Soooooooooooooooooooooo  glad we have 17's & *Jercs* and the government didn't get stampeded into buying  these.



Sooo witty!  Good job with that, that's sure a nice nickname for the plane.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Almost there:

A400M Deal Close To Completion
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/11/08/05.xml



> LONDON — The customers and companies involved in developing the A400M military transport have taken another step toward putting the European program on a new contractual baseline, with governments extracting slightly better payment terms following months of talks.
> 
> In March, an initial agreement was reached on how to restructure contract terms and cover several billion euros worth of cost overruns stemming from technical problems that caused a three-year schedule delay. However, translating that accord into a new contract has proven difficult. In October, the parties reached an initial breakthrough on their remaining differences; and on Nov. 5, following a meeting in Toulouse, the talks were largely completed.
> 
> The agreement largely follows what was spelled out in March, according to EADS, although “the government payments are now more back-loaded than previously expected.”
> 
> Still to be resolved is the exact functioning of a €1.5 billion ($2.1 billion) export levy facility, under which countries are repaid on exports.
> 
> By the end of the year, the partners hope to finalize the terms that will spell out the size of the royalty payment per aircraft and the number of exports over which the total must be amortized. A key concern is to ensure the royalty payment does not drive up the unit price so much as to stifle exports.
> 
> Under the accord, governments *reduced the total A400M buy to 170 units from 180 (with Germany taking seven fewer airlifters and the U.K. cutting three)* [emphasis added] and increased the contract price by €2 billion. Damages owed governments for the delays are suspended unless the new program schedule, which calls for first deliveries in early 2013, is again breached...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

In other A400 news today . . .  six Europeans bail on the A400 . . .  

http://tinyurl.com/2fbprcp


----------



## MarkOttawa

Weird military procurement:

Germany To Take Only 40 A400Ms
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/01/26/01.xml



> FRANKFURT — Germany plans to further reduce the number of Airbus Military A400Ms its air force will operate. The Bundestag’s budget committee is expected to follow a proposal made by the ruling coalition to use only 40 of the 53 A400Ms the country plans to order.
> 
> The issue is on the committee’s Jan. 26 agenda. Juergen Koppelin, a high-ranking member of the liberal Free Democratic Party, says 13 aircraft will be returned to Airbus for export sales.
> 
> Germany is the last A400M launch customer to commit to the details of a compromise formed in early 2010. As part of the basic agreement, the *country reduced its order to 53 from 60 aircraft* [emphasis added]. The deal includes a €2-billion ($2.7-billion) price hike for the first 180 aircraft and a €1.5-billion prepayment that Airbus Military is to return to the governments as export revenues come in, starting with the 185th aircraft.
> 
> In return, the A400M launch customers agreed not to cancel more than a total of 10 of the original 180 orders. A reduction of 20 aircraft would far exceed the agreed upon limits and threaten the compromise.
> 
> Thus, Germany will buy 53 aircraft but give 13 of them back to Airbus for remarketing...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

"Thus, Germany will buy 53 aircraft but give 13 of them back to Airbus for remarketing..."

Now that is a creative way to sell airplanes !

Aren't we fortunate the current government  did not cave to the relentless Liberal and Bloc pressure to have a competitive process when we picked the C17 as our heavy lifter?  I seem to recall the same bunch of  procurement experts and of course the Rideau (We hate the Military) Centre windbags doing their usual blah, blah, blah  bad deal, blah, blah, blah we should have a competition, blah, blah,blah telling us we should look at the A400 are the same bunch of pinheads going on now about sole sourcing of the F35.

They were wrong then and they are wrong now.  That scenario might make a very effective Election ad comparison.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: Quite about the A400M.  As I wrote at now-defunct _Torch_ in May 2006:

CF airlift procurement: Airbus is getting desperate 



> Both Boeing and Airbus have full-page colour ads in the May 8 _Hill Times_ aimed at our politicians and political media.
> ...
> Airbus...takes the following line, appealing to traditional Canadian parsimony in defence purchases:
> 
> _A400M: Get more -pay less!
> 
> Canada wants a new tactical military transport aircraft. There is also a demand for a new strategic airlift capability. The A400M does both without finding new tax dollars to buy and maintain tow separate aircraft fleets [Airbus' emphasis]...the A400M will be delivered on time and ready for service in 2009..._
> 
> In a pig's eye. The plane has not flown yet and it will have an all-new engine (PWC should have won the competition for this on merit but the Euros gave it to a Euro consortium--why should we reward this behaviour?). In any case the A400M simply does not have the trans-oceanic range and payload to be a good strategic lifter for Canada...



And from September that year:

Anyone still for the A400M? 



> _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ (Sept. 18) update: more reasons why Canada was right not to consider this yet-to-fly plane seriously as a CC-130 replacement or as an alternative to the C-17 (text subscriber only)...



Most recently:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/80150/post-1012545.html#msg1012545



> ...I had no objection to sole-sourcing the Jerc or the C-17.  No conceivable competitors...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ironduke57

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Weird military procurement:
> 
> Germany To Take Only 40 A400Ms
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/01/26/01.xml
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Till this last 13 will be delivered there is a good chance that we have a different government with out the FDP/Liberals.
So there is still a chance we take them for ourself when that time comes.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## MarkOttawa

A company private industry wants to avoid:

Balancing Act
German Government Seeks to Preserve Influence at EADS
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,746762,00.html#ref=nlint



> With Daimler planning to unload shares in European aerospace giant EADS, the government in Berlin is in a strategic pinch: How can it preserve its interests in the Franco-German company in the longer term? Officials at EADS are reportedly suggesting the introduction of a golden share that would give Germany and France vetos on important decision-making.
> 
> When it comes to European aerospace giant EADS, the balance of the company between its European partners is always a delicate one. Tail planes for Airbus jets are manufactured in Spain, wings are developed and produced in Britain and aircraft are assembled in Toulouse, France, and Hamburg, Germany. The situation is similar with the company's complicated shareholding -- the partners vie to preserve their state interests. But between no partners is this balance of power as touchy as it is between Germany and France, the two largest stakeholders.
> 
> So when Daimler announced a few weeks ago that it intended to shed half its remaining shares in the company, the news sent a collective shudder through the German government. Daimler began unloading EADS shares in 2006, dropping from a 30 percent holding at the time to 15 percent today. Almost five years later, Berlin still hasn't managed to come up with the long-term strategy for retaining influence in the company, which is often described as a European champion, an emblem of the advantages of pan-European cooperation.
> 
> Now, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet is reviewing scenarios under which it could convince automobile manufacturer Daimler to maintain its EADS shares. Although the German government has no direct ownership in Airbus, it does have considerable influence over Daimler when it comes to control of EADS.
> 
> *A Subsidy for Electric Cars? *..
> 
> In addition to Daimler's 15 percent, a consortium of German private and government-owned banks also hold 7.5 percent of EADS shares, but Daimler has control of their voting rights. The consortium purchased the shares four years ago in order to give the government in Berlin time to find a permanent solution to the control issue, but they have only pledged to maintain that holding through 2012.
> 
> Chancellor Angela Merkel plans to discuss the new shareholder structure at EADS with Economics Minister Brüderle and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble on Wednesday in order to seek a solution for maintaining the balance between Franco-German interests.
> 
> In France, the government preserves its influence in EADS through its own direct holding in the giant as well as through cooperation with media company Lagadere. Now both Daimler and Lagadere have expressed their intent to unload shares and a new solution must be found for this delicate balance of interests between Paris and Berlin in two countries that, while representing the economic motor of Europe, are often pitted against each other in direct political and industrial competition.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Probably too late to influence the KC-X decision . .  Round/Attempt 3 winner could be announced by Friday and then Protest 3 (aka the Howls of Outrage Tour 2011) will be announced on Monday  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Is this thing even flying yet?


----------



## Haletown

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Is this thing even flying yet?



The flight test program has been underway for over a year  . .  seem to recall they now have 5 aircraft in the test fleet and have just north of 1000hrs of airborne testing done.

Don't know how much is left before they an get a Euro Certification or when the IOC is or with which nation.

Don't really care 'cause we got the 17's & the 130J's are arriving.


----------



## aesop081

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Is this thing even flying yet?



Yup and doing well with its test program............so far.


----------



## OldSolduer

How much testing does a ne a/c like this require and how soon do you guys think it will be ready to sell?


----------



## Haletown

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> How much testing does a ne a/c like this require and how soon do you guys think it will be ready to sell?



There was something on ARES back before XMAS . . .  memory says about 4500hrs test program.

The aircraft are presold . . . and not much prospect right now of any more/new sales.  The original deal was for 180 (?) aircraft and some have been canceled due to the extensive development delays.


----------



## Haletown

AWST back in November.

2700hrs to get a Civilian certification, probably close to that again to get it Military Mission testing done.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/11/01/AW_11_01_2010_p42-265722.xml&headline=Airbus%20To%20Ramp%20Up%20A400M%20Test%20Effort&next=0


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> *Billion-Euro Bailout
> *
> 
> *A400M Military Transport Plane Saved in Seville
> *
> 04/07/2011
> Spiegel ONLINE
> 
> LINK
> 
> *For a while, it looked like the Airbus A400M transport plane was going to end up on the drawing room floor. But several European countries that have ordered the plane backed a deal on Thursday covering 3.5 billion euros worth of cost overruns. Airbus Military say the first planes will be delivered in late 2012.*
> 
> The Airbus military transport plane A400M can seemingly do it all. It can lift 37 tons, it can fly 8,700 kilometers (5,400 miles) without refueling, and it can land on rough, unpaved landing strips.
> 
> One thing it hasn't been able to do, though, is make the leap from the drawing board to the market. But, on Thursday, European countries interested in stocking up their military transport capabilities with the new plane provided their formal support for a €3.5 billion ($5 billion) deal to rescue the over-budget, overdue project.
> 
> "Challenges are here to overcome, and today we can say this challenge has been concluded," Airbus Military head Domingo Urena said on Thursday after the deal was signed in Seville, Spain.
> 
> The deal finalizes a preliminary agreement reached last November -- itself a renegotiated version of a deal hammered out in Feb. 2010 -- that calls for the seven European countries awaiting deliveries of the plane to help cover gaping cost overruns.
> 
> As part of the deal, Germany agrees to purchase 53 of the planes, or seven fewer than it had originally ordered. Owing to Defense Ministry cuts, 40 of these 53 planes will be delivered to the German air force, and the rest will be sold to other countries.
> 
> *Years Behind Schedule*
> 
> Britain has reduced its order by three planes, to 22. Other countries involved in the deal are France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey.
> 
> Airbus Military originally contracted to deliver 170 planes by 2010 at a total cost of €20 billion. But problems with development -- particularly related to the plane's turbo-prop engines and the software developed to run them -- resulted in at least €5 billion worth of cost overruns. Some estimates have placed the additional expenses at twice that amount.
> 
> In its defense, the company has argued that the financial problems were exacerbated by European insistence that the engines be developed and produced in the European Union rather than ordered from the US-based supplier Pratt & Whitney.
> 
> The project, launched in 2003, was almost cancelled altogether in 2009, when delays led several buyers to threaten to withdraw their orders. The first test flight finally took place in December of 2009, fully two years behind schedule. Now, initial deliveries are scheduled for the very end of 2012.
> 
> Despite the project's significant growing pains, the plane itself has been widely praised and has been performing well in ongoing tests. The A400M program is also expected to support 40,000 jobs in Europe by 2016.
> 
> cgh -- with wire reports


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Wasn't sure whether I should post here or start a new thread, but decided to post here. Mods feel free to move somewhere you think more appropriate.



> *Up close with a Grizzly; first flight on an A400M*
> 
> By Craig Hoyle
> 
> on March 4, 2013 1:43 PM | Permalink | Comments () | TrackBacks (0) |
> 
> The UK's signature of two new contracts linked to its A400M acquisition prompted Airbus Military to fly development aircraft "Grizzly 4" to the Royal Air Force's Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire on 1 March.
> 
> This was good news not only because it gave military types the opportunity to see inside the new-generation transport during an open-ramp visit, and also for at least one of the RAF's future "Atlas" pilots to get some flight time at the controls, but as they also took a handful of UK journalists flying for the first time; me included.
> 
> Airbus's chief military test pilot Ed Strongman headed the crew which brought EC-404 to a chilly Brize from Toulouse, France. The aircraft carries a light load of flight test instrumentation and associated equipment, which still allowed a British armoured vehicle (a Jackal, I think) to be trial-loaded and removed ahead of our test ride.
> 
> Here's some video footage from the day that I compiled and have pulled together with the help of our clever technical people in the office. And thanks to one of our friends at Airbus Military's media team for also taking the camera for part of the filming.
> 
> 
> Also, here are some of my first impressions about flying aboard an Atlas (please bear in mind that I'm not a test pilot, folks):
> 
> The cargo hold is large and uncluttered, and the seating installed along its sides is both roomy and comfortable. The four-point passenger harness is also considerably easier to use than the more fiddly style familiar on the C-130.
> 
> Also with regard to passenger comfort, I was interested to find out whether the company's claims about low noise in the hold would stack up (it previously ditched plans to add active noise cancellation equipment, saying it wasn't needed).
> 
> I didn't wear, or need, ear protection during our 1h sortie, and could hear the shouted instructions from the loadmaster from his position near the tail ramp prior to take off, despite the fact that all four engines were running and that I was sat just ahead of them. Acceleration and climb-out were swift, with plenty of engine response, and once up to height noise levels were not unlike being onboard a turboprop airliner. And with a load of equipment in the hold, that should improve.
> 
> Having the tail ramp open made noise more of an issue, but was by no measure unpleasant from where I was sitting. I didn't get to stand on the ramp due to a shortage of harnesses, but maybe next time?
> 
> Heading up to the flight deck via a narrow set of steps above the loadmaster station, it was striking to see how spacious the Atlas cockpit is, and also how much glass there is - crew visibility looks to be excellent.
> 
> In summary, the aircraft's cargo hold is spacious, well lit and comfortable to travel in, and the transport feels to have plenty of agility and throttle response. I'm pretty sure that any RAF pilots or loadmasters currently operating the service's legacy C-130Ks, TriStars and VC10s who have the chance to transition to the Atlas will be looking forward to it arriving on the ramp at Brize for real in September 2014.



More at  article link  including photo's and video of A400M landing and in flight.


----------



## Good2Golf

Hmmm...lots of comparisons / superlatives compared to the C-130 -- not that the business case was to 1:1 replace the C-130.  Didn't hear that 'other' plane mentioned, though....you know, the one with pallets of airline comfort seats, etc...  Heck, not even any mention of the C-160 Transall.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

wee update

Airbus Risks A400M Penalty Claims By Partner Nations
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published March 06, 2015)

By Giovanni de Briganti
BORDEAUX, France --- The uneasy truce between Airbus Group and the A400M partner nations over delayed deliveries and performance shortfalls has flared up after a late February meeting in Berlin failed to provide a satisfactory response to outstanding issues.

Airbus “had nothing to tell us about deliveries or about the missing military capabilities,” French defense procurement chief Laurent Collet-Billon said here March 4. “We will have to hit them with penalties and interest charges to make them understand just how unhappy we are.”

Airbus, the prime contractor for the A400 program, has been running late on deliveries as it struggles with an underperforming supply chain and with quality control issues at its own production plants as well as its final assembly lines at Seville, Spain. It is also late in qualifying the aircraft for military capabilities beyond the basic transport mission, which severely limits the productivity of the aircraft already delivered.

At the Berlin meeting, Airbus failed to provide the main A400M partner nations with a revised schedule for future deliveries and for expanding military capabilities.

“We are also not happy with the performance of Airbus on the A400M deliveries, and we are working hard with them and with the other nations to solve the problems and avoid other problems in future,” a spokesperson for the German defense ministry said March 6.

rest at link http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/161581/partner-nations-may-apply-penalty-clauses-to-a400m-program.html


----------



## Good2Golf

Guess there is a difference between Gaulic and Teutonic approaches re: Airbus Group.

France: 





> We will have to hit them with penalties and interest charges to make them understand just how unhappy we are.



Germany: 





> ...we are working hard with them and with the other nations to solve the problems and avoid other problems in future...


----------



## dapaterson

Germany has expended all its frustration and desire to punish on Greece.


----------

