A400M delay has RAF concerned

[J Boyle]

With the two-year delay in the first test flight of the A400 engine and other delays with the airframe, the RAF is facing a transport shortfall.

Here's a link to a story in the new Aviation Week...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense

[Mick]

I'm not surprised that the RAF is concerned. The A400M programme is starting to look a bit of a mess after all the fanfare of the roll-out of the first aircraft in the summer.

[marktheevildude]

they could always lease some c17s with an option to buy later, oh no wait, they already did that and were ripped off!

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Mick

I'm not surprised that the RAF is concerned. The A400M programme is starting to look a bit of a mess after all the fanfare of the roll-out of the first aircraft in the summer.

Compared to the C-17 or C-130J when they started out it looks pretty normal.

[Arthur]

Don't think they are planning on concrete ballast in the forward cargo hold yet... the delay doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary.

[Sens]

The RAF has to be pleased. Through a fix price contract with Airbus all possible delays will be costly for Airbus. The British are used, that during their normal procurements, the price of military items will double. One of such examples maybe the F-35B and the related CVs in the future.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by swerve

Compared to the C-17 or C-130J when they started out it looks pretty normal.

Maybe from a development point of view, but there wasn't the same kind of political influences for either of those aircraft that the A400M has suffered from. Most of the problems continue to be associated to the TP400, an engine that was chosen largely as a result of political pressures rather than an absolute industrial need. It looks like it was a mistake to develop both the aircraft and a new engine, something that even the Airbus Military CEO has reportedly admitted. Had the alternative engine option been chosen, then maybe the A400M may have been already flying. Many of the countries that have ordered the A400M need it now or at least from the original in-service date, not x amount of years down the line. Don't forget 2011 is when it is supposed to begin entering service and when it will have initial operating capability. The UK and other nations that have ordered it will not have received their full deliveries until later on. Given that there has always been a tight schedule between development and delivery, further problems do little to suggest that this is anyway a smooth or normal development programme.

Incidentally, Defensenews also reports this story and says that the RAF will purchase two further MQ-9 Reapers next year, to add to the two (plus third to be delivered in January 2009) and that it is still assessing options for the Nimrod R1 replacement (thus again acknowledging that it will be scrapped). Air Marshall Thorton claims that the Rivet Joint is being considered along with the [expensive] option of fitting systems to the Nimrod MRA4 or the smaller Sentinel.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...62&c=EUR&s=AIR

[old shape]

Originally Posted by Sens

The RAF has to be pleased. Through a fix price contract with Airbus all possible delays will be costly for Airbus. The British are used, that during their normal procurements, the price of military items will double. One of such examples maybe the F-35B and the related CVs in the future.

A400 costs are 5 fold, in some areas 10 fold.
Mis-designed, mis-managed and mis-marketed. It's looking more and more like the camo elephant every day. The forces want a grunt-dropper that can take a larger load than the present Herc. A bit faster too. End of.

They are getting an experiment built to the Drawing Standards of a Rolls Royce Engine, but the final quality of a Chinese screwdriver.

Thank heavens the "Fat Herc" is on the drawing board.

[Flanker_man]

Originally Posted by old shape

Thank heavens the "Fat Herc" is on the drawing board.

The 'new' C-130J didn't exactly have a trouble-free entry into service did it ??

ken

[old shape]

Originally Posted by Flanker_man

The 'new' C-130J didn't exactly have a trouble-free entry into service did it ??

ken

True, nor does any piece of Defence kit.

The A400 is, and will be, a heck of a lot more problematic then the J. I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong.

[Bager1968]

Originally Posted by Sens

The RAF has to be pleased. Through a fix price contract with Airbus all possible delays will be costly for Airbus. The British are used, that during their normal procurements, the price of military items will double. One of such examples maybe the F-35B and the related CVs in the future.

DefenseNews: EADS May Freeze A400M Production for 7 Countries
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...93&c=EUR&s=AIR

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

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.

[DJ.]

Loosing any customers could put nail in the coffen for A400.. not the least RAF order.. most likely they will end up leasing some aircraft and see what happens in the next year or two.

Maybe Putin can loan few Antonovs

[marktheevildude]

so let me get this straight EADS can throw a hissy fit because it might get a finacial penalty for not holding up its end of the contract, yet everytime the costs rise the customers have to pay? I have mentioned this on here before, why can defence contractors have such massive cost over-runs and governments just seem to pay them?

[Robert Hilton]

Originally Posted by marktheevildude

so let me get this straight EADS can throw a hissy fit because it might get a finacial penalty for not holding up its end of the contract, yet everytime the costs rise the customers have to pay? I have mentioned this on here before, why can defence contractors have such massive cost over-runs and governments just seem to pay them?

Cost over-runs are not always due to higher costs of a particular project, it is also a way of hiding funding for some of the more adventurous projects.

[J Boyle]

Wonder what the final unit cost will be compared to a C-17, 747F, 330F, etc.?

[bgnewf]

EADS should sue the Europrop International for the delays on the engine. IIRC the first A400 was rolled out a long time ago now and that he engine is the primary reason why the program is overdue.

[kfeltenberger]

Originally Posted by bgnewf

EADS should sue the Europrop International for the delays on the engine. IIRC the first A400 was rolled out a long time ago now and that he engine is the primary reason why the program is overdue.

Are there any current suitable engines that could be substituted? Not just turboprops, but perhaps jets?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by marktheevildude

so let me get this straight EADS can throw a hissy fit because it might get a finacial penalty for not holding up its end of the contract, yet everytime the costs rise the customers have to pay? I have mentioned this on here before, why can defence contractors have such massive cost over-runs and governments just seem to pay them?

I have to agree on this one, they agreed to a fixed contract. I think the customers should call EADS bluff on this one.

[Distiller]

Originally Posted by kfeltenberger

Are there any current suitable engines that could be substituted? Not just turboprops, but perhaps jets?

Turbofans would be an option, but would miss the mission spec point of choosing props in the first place. The only replacement engine/prop-combo inside five years or so would be the Progress D-27.

[sealordlawrence]

Buy more C-17's, its what the air bridge needs.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Distiller

Turbofans would be an option, but would miss the mission spec point of choosing props in the first place. The only replacement engine/prop-combo inside five years or so would be the Progress D-27.

Probably too late to choose a new engine now, but probably the safest choice if it ever happened would be the PW180 which lost out to the Europrop engine.

[old shape]

Originally Posted by Distiller

Turbofans would be an option, but would miss the mission spec point of choosing props in the first place. The only replacement engine/prop-combo inside five years or so would be the Progress D-27.

Yep, I'd go for the D27 too, and since the wall fell over, it counts as European!

[Aurel]

A different view on the issue:
http://www.safran-group.com/article....e=2351&lang=en

[Sens]

Originally Posted by Aurel

A different view on the issue:
http://www.safran-group.com/article....e=2351&lang=en

When true, it does indicate, that the program does suffer to typical software problems, which delayed nearly all military programs since the 80s.

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Probably too late to choose a new engine now, but probably the safest choice if it ever happened would be the PW180 which lost out to the Europrop engine.

But it doesn't exist. It was a proposed development of an existing core. It was almost certainly lower risk - at the time the decision was taken. Time has moved on, & now it (& any other engine) would be a vastly more risky option, & add years of delay to the programme.

The only option now is to fix the problems ASAP. The airframe is sitting waiting for the engines.

Engine ground tests on the C-130 testbed have been proceeding for a while (run up to full power 3 weeks ago), but AFAIK no flight tests yet.
http://www.marshallaerospace.com/news/newsArticle33.php
There was talk a few weeks ago of flight tests being impossible in the vile weather we were having, but I don't see why that would hold up ground running, except taxiing, & anyway, we've had some spells of very good weather since.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by swerve

Compared to the C-17 or C-130J when they started out it looks pretty normal.

Funny, for the A400M its normal??? Yet, if the F-35 has a minor problem or delay. Then its on verge of collapse............................interesting on how that works!


Regardless, I consider the A400 problems as minor in the scope of Military Aircraft Development. Of course the same could be said for the F-35. Espcially, compare to many other Military Aircraft over the last 30-40 years.

[pfcem]

Originally Posted by marktheevildude

so let me get this straight EADS can throw a hissy fit because it might get a finacial penalty for not holding up its end of the contract, yet everytime the costs rise the customers have to pay? I have mentioned this on here before, why can defence contractors have such massive cost over-runs and governments just seem to pay them?

Because much of the time cost over-runs & delays are not the fault of the contractor (hell, much of the time they are not even real). The government deliberately UNDERESTIMATES the costs in order to fool the bean counters of the true costs, the program inevitably gets audited when costs do not appear to be adding up or as part of the "normal" oversite/review process & BAM - instant cost over-runs. Other times the government can't seem to stay out of the way & let the contractor do its job, instead micromanaging the whole process causing all sorts of problems stemming from people who don't have the 1st clue how to get things done telling those that do how to do it.

[Deino]

At least here is something for dreaming ....

(from the latest issue of CombatAircraft 10+11/08)

Cheers, Deino

[Sens]

Originally Posted by pfcem

Because much of the time cost over-runs & delays are not the fault of the contractor (hell, much of the time they are not even real). The government deliberately UNDERESTIMATES the costs in order to fool the bean counters of the true costs, the program inevitably gets audited when costs do not appear to be adding up or as part of the "normal" oversite/review process & BAM - instant cost over-runs. Other times the government can't seem to stay out of the way & let the contractor do its job, instead micromanaging the whole process causing all sorts of problems stemming from people who don't have the 1st clue how to get things done telling those that do how to do it.

Not the government does underestimate the related costs, but several producer do stick on the short memories of the present people in power. The best people are to find in the marketing department. When the contract is signed and the program does run sometime, out of nowhere problems will show up, the customer has to pay for it, well aware that too much money and time was spent already to allow a bail-out from that. When something is to blame about governments, such do start new programs always late.

[mupp]

Originally Posted by Deino

At least here is something for dreaming ....

(from the latest issue of CombatAircraft 10+11/08)

Cheers, Deino

You have to admit it is stylish....