The brinkmanship seems to be coming to a conclusion on the saga that is the A400 with the partner nations concluding talks on their negotiating position. They will now invite EADS to the table to conclude a way forward.
Whilst there remains differences between the partner nations they all recognise that common ground needs to be found and found fast.
The A400 has blown its budget by over €11 billion and is three years late, the delivery issue remains particularly acute for a number of partner nations as their existing transport aircraft fleets are being flogged to death in high intensity operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Costs of plugging the gap must be factored into the cost over runs. EADS has asked the partner nations for a 25% increase, about half of the total cost over run, EADS shouldering the rest.
The consequences of cancellation are dire both for the European aerospace industry and European defence collaboration, which would lead some to say that the A400 is an overly political project that shows the folly of greater European defence integration.
I think the A400 is safe but the partner nations, through OCCAR, must not let EADS off the hook too easily. It is likely that delivery time scales will be elongated, some compromise on initial operating capabilities and dispensing with contract penalties for late delivery will be accepted.
EADS may also contribute aircraft to meet the interim capability gap with a mix of Airbus and CASA aircraft.
Even if the full cost increase is accepted there must be a quid quo pro.
I’m afraid I cant agree.
EADS signed a contract with penelty clauses.
It has broken that contract, so the penelty clauses should be enforced.
Obviously, EADS cant hand over E6bn, in cash, so the various parties of the fixed price contract should be given the equivilant in share holdings, which would be 50% ownership of EADS.
If EADS had some how managed to come in well under budget and was building them at half the fixed price, we wouldnt be gettin a discount, EADS would just be racking up bumper profits
Seems odd that we are spending money on this just to stifle the eurocratic urges of the Labour Party and Majors Tories. As you say this is pure politics and very little defence issues. The C-17 has a proven track record, we already have 8, apparently our ‘special relationship’ should get us a good deal on the 20-25 transporters needed. What is more, as it is constantly under development getting Rolls Royce in on the project would probably be a small matter given their collaboration on the engines for the 787 Dreamliner – same company that makes the C-17 III Globemaster.
It is a tad more expensive but weighed against the billions which have been spent on the A400M I would say it is a no brainer.
If you read some of our posts on the A400 you should be able to pick up some background. People who say just buy the C17 and C130 fail to realise that the A400 is neither. It can do things that the C130 and C17 cannot and is being procured to replace the C130K’s
We are only going to have 7 C17′s by the way, the contract for the last one only being signed recently
I have read a lot of them and they are very good in their analysis I agree. But I find hard to justify the cost of €11 billion euros for the R and D. That is a sunk cost certainly but the plane in itself is not so good as it should be for that money, nor do I like that fact that it is a link to an integrated european defence force. In fact the latter would be terrible. There have been so many mistakes everywhere it just smacks of unprofessionalism at all echelons of industry and government when they are going for politics instead of performance.
I just find it very hard to justify buying the plane now.
My personal stance is against EADS they should not have signed the contract if they had doubts what they signed was not possible. If I agree to a contract does that mean I can use the cop out if I make a mess of it that I should not have signed it? I think not I would find myself in deep trouble and my reputation destroyed. The UK has a reasonable plan B which others do not, plan B is also arguably cheaper and simpler in the short to medium term however the long term view is fuzzy.
If EADS is swallowing half of the 11 billion euro overspend then the, say 6 billion euro, funding gap should be filled by the partner nations that is of course obvious. What is not obvious is who pays for what it could be allocated by the number of aircraft ordered or by the work share allocation but this would be argued over. One thing that is clear to me is that the French should be paying a larger slice of the pie after all they are the nation that is driving the project and do not want it to fail the most, they discounted other options in favour of the airbus project and pushed for others to follow. I’m sorry if people dispute my stance but that is the way I feel, we all have opinions that others do not like.
I’m not saying the UK should not pay more but I feel we should be paying much less than other nations when we factor in various points. The problem is there is no money available within the current funding pot so and dropping aircraft numbers is no solution additional funds should be found. In addition to that some bids should be put on EADS to prevent further disaster, First of all I think financial penalties should be redrawn to fit a later schedule and but they should still be there to keep pressure on EADS to follow that new schedule. Second, aircraft performance and features should not be modified to save money as this will only come back to bite us in the backside at a later date so EADS should have to deliver upon performance and features. Third, through life support and defect remediation should be the sole responsibility of EADS if they messed up the design they should fix it.
That is of course if we decide to stick with the A400M program which part of me says no we should not as on balance it’s not good. I’m a Eurosceptic so European Defence integration has no weight in my mind whereas using the same equipment as the USA a nation who actually does something and is able to act has more weight. They speak with one voice Europe is a collection of what are/were sovereign nations and not all will agree and as currently shown Yes does not mean Yes as there are caveats. Future support and upgrades is easier with US equipment as they are one massive customer applying common upgrades across a huge fleet lowering cost and risk of failure. Whereas here in Europe the upgrade process will be fractured between many operators with differing equipment chosen from differing manufacturers in differing languages alongside differing schedules and requirements. The industrial work share is not exactly something I think we could lose that easily reallocating it now would cost EADS money and further delay the program and it’s their factory. The delivery times available are still essentially being pushed back the aircraft has only just flown so there will be problems down the line, the current fleet is essentially past its breaking point and new aircraft are needed soon.
I applaud the comments of the new Chief Exec of Airbus Military – he is basically saying that whoever signed this contract on our behalf was on drugs ! Lets face it they have the governments and their military customers by the tails – “if you don’t pay up, we aint gonna build it !”
We should just have done a deal to build a westernized AN70 on licence……