A400M profit sharing deal agreed

HAVE YOUR SAY

08 April 2011

I am sure the comments by Urena are right.
After years of troubles this is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Not only does the test programme seem to be going very smoothly,its performance seems to be excelling what was originaly thought.
I think that there is going to be a very large market for this aircraft particularly as the US still has not put forward any ideas to replace the C130 series.
If Airbus can capture this market they will really be onto a winner.
michael - notts

08 April 2011

The US market would be a fantastic prize to capture. But even when contracts are won fairly the US companies cry foul, look at the inflight refueling contract the EADS/Northrop won but was cancelled because Boeing appealed against it. Now US Airforce is buying the Boeing KC-46 instead!

If the A400M is good enough it should be given a fair crack of the whip in the US, it remains to be seen.
Rob - Telford

08 April 2011

This aircraft will fit perfectly with the C-17 giving the RAF an a/c capable of lifting 32 tonnes compared to a C-130J (C3/C4) load of 19 tonnes.
The A400 will fly 50% further than the the C-130J at a higher cruise speed and can land on semi prepared airstrips.

It is one of the rare bright spots in the SDSR that this aircraft was spared and will soon replace the ageing C-130K (C1/C2) in RAF service long after they needed replacement.
In time the plan is to retire the C-130J ten years earlier than planned in the mid 2020's however the amount of work the C3's and C4's are doing is so much greater than planned they will be knackered by then anyway. Some are already being scheduled for wing box replacements to keep them going which was not planned originally.

The Embraer KC-390 is a 20 tonne capacity lifter and so will be challenging the C-130J rather than the A400.
Graham - High Wycombe

09 April 2011

A shame that this aircraft is at least 6 years late, and billions over budget. Now lets deal with some facts.

The procurement of the A400M has been a disaster from start to who knows where the finish is. Designed to cost around £60m a piece, lift 37 tonnes and be in service by 2009. Today in 2011, already two years late, we are still testing, and full production will not begin until the back end of 2012, nearly four years late.

The final design appears to be too heavy, and several well informed sources have reported that because of this, it is limited in its ability to carry over 30 tonnes, despite Airbus protestations, and a revised advertising campaign which states 32t. Of course the original breach in capacity contract is just brushed aside as if it never existed. (Oops, we've accidently lost 13% carrying capacity, but lets sweep it under the carpet.) It is now projected that the UK will not receive its order until 2014-6, and the individual cost of the plane is exceeding £110m a piece, and only get 22 units, instead of 25.

The C17, able to lift more than twice this weight costs some £140m, while the C130's weigh in at £40m.

So you could buy 2 Hercules for the cost of 1 A400M which could also carry more. Or 1 x A400M is 70% the cost of a C17, but can only lift 41% of its cargo.

The A400M procurement was intended to lift 925 tonnes, ie. 25 planes @ 37t. The same could have been achieved and in service now, with an additional purchase of 8 C17's and 16 C130J's. The MOD would have saved £750m. Billions would also have been saved over the lifetime of these planes because it would be cheaper to train and maintain two airframes instead of three. (Pre SDSR)

A final fleet of some 15 C17's, and 40 C130J's would form some five squadrons of air transport, which could be based at one location in the UK, most probably Lyneham, and be the largest and most effective strategic lift and transport asset outside the United States Air Force. Similarly important, a fleet of this size would be easily capable of meeting the Armed Forces need for the delivery and ongoing maintenance of forces for brigade level ground operations within 14 days, a stated departmental requirement.

So the Armed Forces are getting a plane which can't lift the Army's requirement, is several years late, has nearly doubled in cost and will result in fewer planes being ordered than are required.
This is an unacceptable situation negotiated by procurement amateurs playing at being big boys in a commercial market and being taken to the cleaners. The losers once again are the taxpayer and the Armed Forces, while those who negotiate these ridiculously poor contracts sit in their ivory towers within the MOD safe from dismissal.
Once again, the procurement politics of buying European, instead of buying off the shelf the best in class on the market have cost the UK armed forces dearly.

Never has so little been achieved by so few, who cost so much.
Andy - Dartford

09 April 2011

Yes the americans will ensure that their 'buy american' policy continues, they won't move away from the C-130 / C-17's ...hell, they probably want to boast when the C-130 family celebrates a century!

Though in saying that, they did licence the HSA illuminators (as used in the FF7's and then developed further) and the Mk75 gun (Otto Melara 76mm) for the hydrofoils and FFG7's.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

11 April 2011

Rob-Telford,
Yes and by all accounts the KC-46 wasn't the USAF's first choice but was forced upon them by intense lobbying by US politicians and industry.
The politicians desperately needed to keep this massive order in the US for their own political futures,and appealled to the aerospace unions in particular and the general public creating an atmosphere of the prospect of mass unemployement in the aircraft industry if a European firm won.
They also kept up the pressure on EADS allegedly receiving government subsidies to keep the costs down.
This time though the A400 will be flying and proven so that the US will have to go to the drawing board to replace it if it deems A400 not suitable!
I would not put this past them,but it would show their policy for what it is 'Protectionism'
michael - notts

11 April 2011

Andy - Dartford,

Problem is you can't split a vehicle that is around the 32 tonne mark between 2 C-130 also the C-130 is width restricted compared to the A400 which means it can accommodate a number of vehicles that the C-130 simply can't.

You also seem to forget that we also have an industrial policy that supports UK aerospace and the A400M does exactly that. Also you miss the fact that we will be getting a share back on profits from exports.

Yes more C-17's would be good I'm sorry we don't seem to be getting the eighth that the RAF requested.
However we are not going to be able operate as many squadrons post SDSR and so we may as well operate an aircraft that carries a lot more a lot further than a C-130.
Graham - High Wycombe

11 April 2011

Andy - Dartford

One last point, we are only going to maintain two airframes the C-130J's a racking up so much use that they are going to be knackered circa early 2020's (or before) that's when they will be retired and the RAF will have two airframes to maintain not three.
Graham - High Wycombe

11 April 2011

Slightly off topic but to good not to post is the latest revelation postedon key.aero/miltary.
Andy-Dartford will appreciate it after his criticism of the MOD's procurement record.
'BAE have been awarded an £8m contract under a UOR for a helmet mounted cueing system for the Tornado. This system was installed in Harrier shortly before they were grounded following the SDSR'

michael - notts

12 April 2011

This link relates to the contract Michael refers:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/124562/raf-to-add-helmet_mounted-cueing-to-tornado-strike-fighters.html
Graham - High Wycombe