Airbus A400M

[BlackKnight]

The Airbus A400M finally has its first flight. Looking at the video you'd think the huge collection of politicians and airbus leadership had just launched a ship to the moon. Interestingly the aircaft claims to take the place between the C-17 and the C-130 though its expected performance to date (overweight - reduced range and payload) make it look more like a very expensive C-130J.

Standard...

In fact, the program is so far behind schedule and over budget that any thought of profitability is long gone. Further, most of its customers are now using penalty clauses to demand rebates and reduced costs, which is kind of stupid since Airbus is heavily subsidized by most of those same countries (FR, UK, GE, LX etc). Any losses the consortium realizes in lack of sales have to be made up by the nations themselves... So they will be "robbing Peter to pay Paul"...

Standard... it's how the global economy works.

To add insult to injury, South Africa, one of the only non-European countries to contract the A400M in decent numbers has cancelled the order because it is so late to need. Meanwhile the UK has ordered yet another C-17 bringing their numbers to seven.

Still it looks cool...

Arguable...

EDIT: Don't know how to make multiple comments in a reply.

I face palm myself.

Barney

[Steve Davies]

Further, most of its customers are now using penalty clauses to demand rebates and reduced costs, which is kind of stupid since Airbus is heavily subsidized by most of those same countries (FR, UK, GE, LX etc). Any losses the consortium realizes in lack of sales have to be made up by the nations themselves... So they will be "robbing Peter to pay Paul"...

Still considerably cheaper than pulling out of the programme altogether!

[flynhigh]

Photos from first flight.

[HerkDerka]

Do they teach French test pilots how to put up the landing gear? I hope they wrote up the overspeed.

[Dead Last]

Do they teach French test pilots how to put up the landing gear? I hope they wrote up the overspeed.

The whole thing about having two sets of engines and props is going to be a tremendous ass pain when this abomination starts to deploy... Or when the ever reliable computer $hits the bed. Whatever, I'll continue to fly my 88 model 130 and be completely happy.

I'm just saying

Cheers

[uhhello]

Do they teach French test pilots how to put up the landing gear? I hope they wrote up the overspeed.

On most of the test flight videos I have seen, they rarely raise the gear for the first flight.

[Steve Davies]

Do they teach French test pilots how to put up the landing gear? I hope they wrote up the overspeed.

1) PIC was a Brit

2) U/C was indeed 'put up'

[HerkDerka]

On most of the test flight videos I have seen, they rarely raise the gear for the first flight.

Joke.

[hobbitcid]

On most of the test flight videos I have seen, they rarely raise the gear for the first flight.

I once knew a test pilot who when asked the same question said "we don't raise the gear on the first flight because we're not sure if it will come down."

In reality, every event in flight testing (and ground testing) is done according to a test card or script. These cards and/or scripts are extensions of an approved test plan that stretches out over the entire test and evaluation program. As a result, the first flight often does not include cycling of the gear as they are testing everything from avionics to low speed handling. They simply don't have time for it. So while it may look strange, the flight deck and engineers in the aircraft are up to their ears in tests. There is a lot of "can you hear me know" kind of mundane testing going on. Not really that exciting at this point.

[Guest Jackonicko]

Whatever, I'll continue to fly my 88 model 130 and be completely happy.

The -130 was a great aircraft in its day. It's still a very good aircraft today.

But ask the launch customer for the J-model 130 about teething troubles, and the A400M doesn't look so bad by comparison.

And when it is in service, A400M will have a 'right-sized' hold for more of today's and tomorrow's loads than the cross section of the -130 allows.

There's a place for an aircraft that sits between the C-130 and the C-17, and the A400M fits that space fairly well.

Just sayin'.....!

[brickhistory]

Just sayin'.....!

Riiiight. Some things just don't go together.

But given the above, how about a "pip, pip, wot?"

Knock yourself out with A400. Hope y'all buy lots of 'em.

Don't see it happening, but I really do hope I'm wrong.

[Guest Jackonicko]

I hope we buy lots of C-17s, and that we replace our C-130s with a sufficient number of A400Ms.

Since we're flat broke, however..........

[DirtyHerk]

And when it is in service, A400M will have a 'right-sized' hold for more of today's and tomorrow's loads than the cross section of the -130 allows.

Now granted I am rather biased, but I think the C-130 cargo compartment size is just fine, especially now with the J-model's stretch variant being the new standard. The complement of the C-17 working in conjunction with the C-130 appears to be plenty adequate. The C-17 is a great mass mobility operator with great performance allowing it to get into some pretty tight places. Unfortunately the sheer size of it plays a rather large limiting factor, which is where the smaller C-130 plays in great. Now granted I don't know the dimensions of the A400m, nor its performance and it may be argued that the A400m can still get in. But I have already been a few places where I was nervous just taxi'n around, not too sure how a bigger plane may have fared. I know I am still pretty new to it all, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out a quarter doesn't fit real well in a dime slot. Just sayin...

[ExBoneOSO]

UPDATE: Looks like EADS is thinking about pulling out (sts) of the A400..

http://industry.bnet.com/government/10004761/eads-threatens-to-end-a400m/?tag=fa.ind1

Locked in continuing discussions with its European partners over how much more they should pay to keep the behind schedule A400M transport aircraft program going EADS (EADS.P) has not raised the idea of ending the program. The A400M has been the premier aerospace program in Europe and was funded through investment by seven countries. The aircraft has started to begin its testing program with a recent first flight.

Unfortunately this is over two years late. The program due to delays in developing the engine and fuel control system is also very over cost. EADS has been negotiating now for a year to restructure the contract as because of their failure to meet deadlines they would have to pay penalties to their customers. The contract is a good example of using a fixed price contract when there was too much risk to really justify it.

Now it is being reported that despite a further extension of the deadline to complete talks on a new contract EADS is threatening to pull the plug themselves on the program. While EADS would be faced with paying severe financial penalties for doing this they would still be less then the losses they currently face if the price of the program is not renegotiated. EADS as well has been stockpiling cash against this eventuality. A year ago the company said that it had decided not to pursue an acquistion in order to maintain the funds for the A400M penalties.

EADS management feels that the continuation of their Airbus line and the development of the new A350 XWB fuel efficient airliner is more important then the military A400M. This aircraft is in competition with the Boeing 787 and has already had over 500 orders placed. The A400M has had one overseas customer, South Africa, cancel due to the cost increases. The total number of aircraft to be purchased is less then 200 with the South Africa cancellation.

Can EADS really do this? They have invested billions more then the funding already received. They not only would be losing that investment but also the penalties paid out. If the biggest customers, the Germans, French and English, hold firm though on sticking to the original terms as they are right now without accepting the 25% price increase proposed then there is no chance of recouping any of the money already spent. It may be the ultimate negotiating ploy to try and find a happy medium. Either way it will be apparent in the next thirty days or so where the program is going.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ExBoneOSO

[StoleIt]

What awesome business ethics...

Why did we include them on the KC-X again?

[Dupe]

What awesome business ethics...

Why did we include them on the KC-X again?

The other competitor for KC-X doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation for defense contractor ethics.

[Flyingnut]

I hope we buy lots of C-17s, and that we replace our C-130s with a sufficient number of A400Ms.

Really?

I agree that the A400 will be a good airplane once it matures, but replace the C-130... NEVER! Of course I'm a little biased.

[AMN1]

Sounds like it should be flying in 2008.....

lol

[Orbit]

A400 Crashed in Seville.

http://www.airlive.net/2015/05/breaking-military-plane-crashs-at.html

[Tonka]

Weird trajectory. Kept the speed pretty constant throughout. To the crew, family and friends!

[TacAirCoug]

Software Cut Off Fuel Supply In Stricken A400M

FRANKFURT and LONDON—The crash of an Airbus A400M airlifter that killed four people on May 9 may have been caused by new software that cut off the engine-fuel supply, industry sources have said.

...

Sources have told Aviation Week that aircraft MSN23, destined for Turkey, featured new software that would trim the fuel tanks, allowing the aircraft to fly certain military maneuvers.

Aviation Week

Edited May 20, 2015 by TacAirCoug

[TreeA10]

Like I needed more reasons to not like Airbus. I starting to think CTRL/ALT/DEL should be the first step in any BOLDFACE for an Airbus.

[Clark Griswold]

Restart on thread.

Gearbox fixed (for now) but not yet approved/certified, new gearbox from GE is the long term fix.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/eurosatory/2016/06/17/a400m-cracked-gearbox/86040066/

Short article on A400 for the USAF and/or USMC.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/11/is-a-usaf-or-usmc-a400-realistic-or-an-airbus-pipe-dream/

Follow on articles:

http://www.janes.com/article/56673/analysis-america-s-future-airlifter-the-european-a400m

http://www.dw.com/en/airbus-eyes-us-military-for-a400m-cargo-plane/a-18513332

http://www.industryweek.com/transportation/airbus-us-will-be-biggest-a400m-military-plane-customer

Now, I think there is an opportunity here.  EADS & LM have programs with issues and having more customers will help both, get a reciprocal purchase agreement as an A400M runs about 180 mil a copy and an F-35A runs about 150 mil a copy, we buy 80 A400Ms, France and Germany buy 100 F-35As, about an even swap in costs.  

Frame this as part of a European Capacity Building strategy for self-defense / reliance wth other deals to follow.  You can pay for it / encourage it by starting a plan to draw down permanent basing in Europe by 30%, this gives them a reason to get to at least 2% GDP per NATO standard on defense and gives a consolation prize of some FMS for the Euros while simultaneously doing the same for the US.

Europe can more credibly defend / deter against aggression, we both get FMS benefits, we reduce our European footprint but still keep the door open and we get a new mobility capability.  Win - Win.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Clark Griswold
wishful thinking