Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Report: Airbus Ready to Ditch A400M

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alessandro
    replied
    One A400m has been to Sweden, Kiruna for wintertests this month.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alessandro
    replied
    Swedish aviation magazine reports +150 hours by two A400m, so far around 250 stall tests.
    Tests are made in Broughton, Wales.

    Leave a comment:


  • P3_Super_Bee
    replied
    Originally posted by 474218 View Post
    The didn't, the C-130 used for the testing the Europrop TP400 is owned by Marshall Aerospace. Marshall's flight tests were conducted for the engine manufacture.
    Yep you are correct... Not sure what I was saying when I said Airbus... The engine manufacture would be the ones flight testing, not Airbus...

    Leave a comment:


  • 474218
    replied
    Originally posted by P3_Super_Bee View Post
    Didn't know Airbus uses(d) a C-130 for the A400 engine test bed...
    The didn't, the C-130 used for the testing the Europrop TP400 is owned by Marshall Aerospace. Marshall's flight tests were conducted for the engine manufacture.

    Leave a comment:


  • P3_Super_Bee
    replied
    Didn't know Airbus uses(d) a C-130 for the A400 engine test bed...

    Leave a comment:


  • APS
    replied
    Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
    Ukrainan, thatīs the origin of the AN-70.
    UK airlift capacity is met by using older designs like AN-124 and Il-76s, wetleased.
    Leases in the air force are just an extension of Urgent Operational Requirement - there's no way eastern european aircraft will find their way into permanent service in that way.*































    *Unless Ukraine joins the EU. Somewhat unlikely given their re-election of a pro-Moscow President.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alessandro
    replied
    3700 hours needed for certification according to Swedish aviation magazine.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
    Ukrainan, thatīs the origin of the AN-70.
    UK airlift capacity is met by using older designs like AN-124 and Il-76s, wetleased.
    And increasingly by the A400's biggest threat the C-17. I believe the UK initially leased 6 - now they have purchased them and added more (9? total ordered or received).

    Leave a comment:


  • Alessandro
    replied
    Originally posted by APS View Post
    We'll be relying on anything other than the A400 unless it makes an appearance sharpish. We're in the middle of a war and we need increasing airlift capability - we don't have all day for Airbus to pull new dates for service entry out of thin air.

    It's years behind schedule and its not exactly a cheap aircraft. It's time to cut the gibberish and give it to us straight; are we going to get the A400 in time for it to meet our current demands for airlift, or not?

    The C-17 line will stay open, because Boeing has perfected the art of telling everyone it's closing down to encourage "Last-minute orders."

    And the AN-70 isn't an option, because we don't buy Russian products.
    Ukrainan, thatīs the origin of the AN-70.
    UK airlift capacity is met by using older designs like AN-124 and Il-76s, wetleased.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by tsv View Post
    The magnitude of aircraft development costs never ceases to amaze me. For something like the A380 or 787 I can understand it to a point. But for projects like the 747-8 and the A400M they've got to be kidding. What is so different about the A400M compared to previous cargo aircraft that necessitates so many billions of Euros to develop? (And why does it cost zillions to extend a 747 a few metres?)

    And what exactly can the A400M do that the AN-70 can't? I know the AN-70 is having it's own funding problems but it seems to be as least as far down the track as the A400M and I'll bet Antonov's budget was only a fraction of EADS'.

    Is it just me or does anyone get the feeling that aircraft manufacturers have effectively got a licence to waste money ad-infinitum?
    I'm hearing you about development costs - pity Verbal isn't still around he could shed some light on this.

    The 747 has IIRC a completely new wing, new engines and I'm sure there have been many other changes - not just a few extra meters plug added to the fuselage.

    For the A400, the western world does not have turboprops powerful enough, so these had to be specially developed basically from scratch. Also, EADS does not have any background designing military transport aircraft. Just because it has wings and engines as does the A330, that does not mean that similar construction data would be useful. The need to design for STOL operations (very different wing design to those designed for passenger operations or fast jet ops) , for unpaved strips (low pressure high floatation landing gear), and the fact that they have not designed or built a turboprop before... They are basically reinventing the wheel.

    Leave a comment:


  • tsv
    replied
    The magnitude of aircraft development costs never ceases to amaze me. For something like the A380 or 787 I can understand it to a point. But for projects like the 747-8 and the A400M they've got to be kidding. What is so different about the A400M compared to previous cargo aircraft that necessitates so many billions of Euros to develop? (And why does it cost zillions to extend a 747 a few metres?)

    And what exactly can the A400M do that the AN-70 can't? I know the AN-70 is having it's own funding problems but it seems to be as least as far down the track as the A400M and I'll bet Antonov's budget was only a fraction of EADS'.

    Is it just me or does anyone get the feeling that aircraft manufacturers have effectively got a licence to waste money ad-infinitum?

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Waddaya know... Politics, politicing and hot air...

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60E0WP20100115

    Leave a comment:


  • APS
    replied
    We'll be relying on anything other than the A400 unless it makes an appearance sharpish. We're in the middle of a war and we need increasing airlift capability - we don't have all day for Airbus to pull new dates for service entry out of thin air.

    It's years behind schedule and its not exactly a cheap aircraft. It's time to cut the gibberish and give it to us straight; are we going to get the A400 in time for it to meet our current demands for airlift, or not?

    The C-17 line will stay open, because Boeing has perfected the art of telling everyone it's closing down to encourage "Last-minute orders."

    And the AN-70 isn't an option, because we don't buy Russian products.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by APS View Post
    Except that by all accounts, the A400 has failed to reach the minimum strategic airlift weight that was stressed as vital to the core of the program. What good is an airlifter, designed to replace the Hercules, which can't lift as much?

    The RAF just bought its eighth C-17.
    It can easily lift more than the Herc (max 20t). The problem is its not at the moment lifting its designed weight - the weight than many other european programs are designed to exploit. For example, the 20t payload of the herc is not sufficient to lift the new breeds of AIFV that has been uparmoured to cope with current IED threats (in excess of 20t and approaching 32t), such as those competing for the UK's FRES ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Rapid_Effect_System ):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(...ghting_vehicle) 33t

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9...d%27Infanterie 26.5t

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOWAG_Piranha 25 -30t

    All of these designs are in excess of the max payload of a herc at 20 tonnes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130J_Super_Hercules

    However they are fine for the A400 as designed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M

    Note it was the german's that blew the whistle on the A400's performance shortcomings because their vehicle, the Boxer is the heaviest and therefore most compromised by the payload shortfall:

    EADS has long maintained the first deliveries would begin three years after the A400M's first flight. The German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland has closely followed the A400M program and reported on 12 January 2009 that the aircraft is overweight by 12 tons and may not be able to achieve a critical performance requirement, the ability to airlift 32 tons. Sources told FTD that, currently, the aircraft can only lift 29 tons, which is insufficient to carry a modern armored infantry fighting vehicle.[24] The FTD report prompted the chief of the German Air Force to say, "That is a disastrous development," and could delay deliveries to the Luftwaffe until 2014.

    Comments about their design parameters:

    The Boxer is built with a high degree of standardization, and designed to be maintained easily and efficiently. It is capable of being air transported in the future A400M tactical airlifter. (Boxer)

    The British Ministry of Defence decided to pursue a replacement, with a specification that it could be airlifted by Airbus A400M and smaller C-130 Herculestransport aircraft. The new "Future Rapid Effect System" project was established on May 5, 2004, with an assessment period of two years.[5]
    Since then, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory has been researching electrically charged armour, with the view of ultimately integrating it into the FRES design.[6] Plans for FRES vehicles to be carried by C-130 have also been dropped for being unworkable.[7]

    Note the requirement for carriage in a C-130 being dropped - the present designs are too heavy for that.

    It's not just these FRES vehicles that are heavier, all in this class have put on weight and added protection:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_Centauro

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FNSS_Pars

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV

    The A400 is a logical 'growth' in capability - it has to be given the weights of the current vehicles. Vehicles being replaced by these newer generation vehicles were perfectly happy being loaded onto a herc:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV432 15t

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_(vehicle) 10.6t

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar 8t

    Or an earlier version of the Pirahna V from FRES, the ASLAV (Phirana II):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLAV 13.2t


    So, in conclusion, 'dis' the A400 all you want, but you are dreaming if you think the C130 can do the same job. With the increasingly capable, better protected AFV's being developed these days (read heavy), you'd better hope the A400 works or a whole stack of european nations will be relying on the C-17 (if the production line is still open) or the An-70 (still in development).

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric Diffoot
    replied
    Wouldn't be surprised, the A400M have had problems ever since it was conceived, but the bolded portion in the article below kinda makes me think Airbus won't drop the A400M.



    http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLD...100106?sp=true
    UPDATE 1-France, Germany express confidence in Airbus A400M



    BERLIN, Jan 6 (Reuters) - German and French ministers expressed confidence on Wednesday in the troubled Airbus A400M military transport plane project and the German politician said a solution on its funding would probably be agreed eventually.



    "In the end there will probably be a sensible solution," German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle told Deutschlandfunk radio.



    Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA) has asked countries buying the transporter to come up with funds for increased production costs, but key buyer Germany has so far ruled out making concessions on volume or price.



    German media have reported Airbus has drawn up contingency plans to scrap Europe's largest defence project, worth 20 billion euros ($28.63 billion), after months of inconclusive talks with seven European NATO buyers.



    French Defence Minister Herve Morin expressed confidence in the programme.



    "I'm confident because this is about the interests of European industry," Morin said in an interview on BFM television.



    He said there were about 5 billion euros ($7.16 billion) in surplus costs linked to the development of the programme.



    "What we're saying to Airbus is that this charge should be shared. I understand very well that the president of Airbus, as part of a logical discussion, should be saying 'we're ready to stop' because it's a way of putting pressure on the governments."



    Bruederle also said he believed the company should have to shoulder "a large part" of the additional costs.


    Business daily Handelsblatt on Wednesday quoted an unnamed Defence Ministry official as saying Germany would not yield to demands from Airbus to increase its funding for the A400M.



    The official told the paper Germany would not contribute more than a further 650 million euros set out in its contract to cover inflation and surcharges.



    A source close to the planemaker said on Tuesday its chief executive was growing impatient over the failure so far to agree a budget deal for the military project.



    Scrapping the deal could trigger repayments of more than 5 billion euros in government advances to nations that first commissioned the troop and heavy equipment carrier -- Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey.



    Negotiators say EADS has asked NATO buyers to contribute 5.3 billion euros of extra funds for producing the A400M and offered to bear a similar increase in development risks, of which 2.4 billion euros has already been provisioned.



    (Reporting by Dave Graham and Madeline Chambers and James Mackenzie in Paris; Editing by Sharon Lindores)
    ($1=.6985 Euro)



    (([email protected]; +49 30 2888 5217; Reuters Messaging: [email protected])) Keywords: AIRBUS GERMANY/
    (C) Reuters 2010. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution ofReuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuterssphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group ofcompanies around the world.nLDE6050AC

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X