A400 seems to be moving through its test and development programme with little fuss.
Recent developments include high crosswind take off and landings, water ingestion testing and flight operations at low level.
As might be expected, these tests and those before it have thrown up the need for some modifications including engine and structural modifications but these should be expected in any development programme, especially one that is developing an engine and airframe in parallel. Airbus Military seem to be confident that the programme will be complete by the end of 2012 and ready for first deliveries as soon as production aircraft can be made available to the launch customer.
Previous to these recent tests icing issues demanded a lengthy modification programme which although now seemingly resolved cost 6 weeks on the schedule.
An interim step towards the end of the development effort is civil certification which was originally scheduled for the end of 2011. Commenting on achieving this, Head of Flight Operations (Fernando Alonso) said
We are advancing very quickly towards the end of certification testing, I cannot say if we will finish on 10 December or 10 January. We will finish as soon as we can
No doubt more hiccups are ahead but I think it would be reasonable to have some degree of optimism that more or less, A400 will be in service in a timely manner, whatever the previous delays.
So as the aircraft moves towards production a couple of questions come to mind.
The first is how the launch partner nations can ratchet down support costs because there is no doubt they are all paying more, especially if Germany continues with its shenanigans. France is playing hardball with Airbus. Laurent Collet-Billon, the director of the French DGA procurement agency, in a question from the National Assembly, stated;
We still don’t have a satisfactory proposal from Airbus, notably for the engine. I have let the industrialists know that, without a support contract, I will not accept the aircraft and I will not pay for them
Kerpow!
Strictly posturing though because everyone knows that ultimately a pan European support deal will have to be struck that despite differing national specifications and in service timescales will harmonise all support arrangements including training and depth maintenance. It seems entirely equitable that the share of this support contract will be in proportion to the number of airframes delivered.
If costs can be genuinely reduced without impacting operational availability then this is arguably a compromise worth taking.
The second question is actually linked to the first, development costs (therefore programme costs) can be recovered by export sales.
The launch nations would have to negotiate with Airbus but it is a reasonable assumption that export prices would not necessarily have to recover all development costs and therefore unit costs to export customers would be less. It would equally not be an unreasonable position for them to ensure that export costs are as low as possible in order to drive sales; being ‘cheap’ or value for money is a basic sales strategy, going for volume instead of high profits.
The A400 is no doubt an in betweener, it does not carry as much or as far as the C17 but can go places the C17 can’t (especially in a repeatable manner) and will have a much lower operating cost (the C17 is very expensive to run).
It is larger and more expensive than the C130 but with the undeniable growth in weight and volume of common military equipment over the last few decades, the C130 is looking increasingly inadequate for many requirements which in turn is pushing more onto C17′s with the attendant cost.
The A400 also has some very nice to have features built in like airborne refuelling.
Despite the obvious political and industrial challenges that would face a US buy of the A400 is it as much as a pipe dream as one might think?
For the USMC it would provide an almost tailor made partner for the V22 and CH53K, extending operational range for a number of conventional and special operations force packages. If the USMC wants to extend its reach then a multi -purpose A400 might not be an altogether mad idea. It is the range of the A400 and its ability to fly tactical flight profiles that would make a lot of difference, an A400 might for example, provide both airborne refuelling for a V22 package and an airdrop facility for a couple of vehicles or stores on the same mission. It is also worth noting that the initial production run will have 10 spares, a result of changing initial order quantities.
For the USAF it represents an even more interesting opportunity. They have clearly recognised the need for a C130 successor but the alphabet soup of programmes have all failed to deliver a coherant set of requirements. Even for the USAF, funding is going to be very tight in the next decade or so with all monies going on F35, AAR, ISTAR, UCAV and the next generation bomber. One has to wonder if there is a cost justification for a C130 Plus or a C17 Lite when that will already exist in the A400, available off the production line.
Also, if the ambition is for something better than the A400 either in terms of performance or ability to operate in vertical mode, will the cash be there to meet the aspirations?
The big issues of course are timing, cash and politics.
As the production run finishes for the A400 any post Afghanistan and budget cut force configurations should be known and well into implementation but it just may be that these produce a lift requirement that can be met by existing aircraft that will likely be available in larger numbers than needed.
Cash is the next big hurdle, as ever. The key point is does the improvement over the C130 and reduction in operating costs over the C17 justify the cost differential, whatever that might be, critical is the export price point and cost of any localisation or local production.
The final major hurdle is politics, never to be underestimated; in a recovering economy would even local production be sellable at election time?
So although a US purchase of the A400 might seem logical on some levels it remains a tough sell, any takers?
Or, are there any other nations that might be in the market?
As you said, the C-130 is becoming obsolete with the ever growing weight of traditionally ‘light’ ground vehicles (MRAPs), and the C-17 line is coming to a close.
The US had numerous C-130 tactical airlift replacements (AJACS etc) but none of them show any real progression. In fact, if the last US defense projects are any indication, then the next future airlifter will be 20-30 years away.
Nevermind the international C-130s; without log/support (obsolete), the A400M will be ideally suited to take the Hercs place.
Assuming of course, the A400M will finally ‘take off’ and won’t be overtaken by the KC-390 etc.
Love you guys but fat chance on the purchase of the A400 for either the USMC or the USAF.
As far as the USMC is concerned any monies allotted for tactical airlift is already spoken for…the V-22, CH-53K and the C-130J. Any other money going to the air wing will be for either the F-35B or UH-1Y/AH-1Z.
Afghanistan has pushed the real need for airlift down rather up. The USAF was in the market for an airlifter but it was the C-27, not a C-130 replacement. The USMC and the US Army are all trying to get lighter, the heavy equipment needed for the current wars is seen as an anomaly.
So no. There will be no A400 sales to US forces. Sadly for EADS is the fact that while this airplane is in development, potential customers are buying C-130J’s by the dozen. The reality is that EADS has two airplanes actually competing against each other….the A300 tanker vs. the A400.
Hi TD, This part has been worked out, to a degree, when the whole programme was hanging in balance
“The second question is actually linked to the first, development costs (therefore programme costs) can be recovered by export sales.
The launch nations would have to negotiate with Airbus but it is a reasonable assumption that export prices would not necessarily have to recover all development costs and therefore unit costs to export customers would be less. It would equally not be an unreasonable position for them to ensure that export costs are as low as possible in order to drive sales; being ‘cheap’ or value for money is a basic sales strategy, going for volume instead of high profits.”
- the partner nations would not make the deal sweeter for EADS (cost overruns)
- facing cuts in guaranteed numbers, the programme was becoming unsustainable for EADS
- the solution worked out was a megaloan, and as it only will become repayable from export sales, it is quasi-equity
Any nations in the market? Always think through the BRICs ( because of their aspiration levels and also purchasing power):
- B; Marcase already pointed out their direction
- C; doing their own thing (unlike in civil aviation)
- RI are working jointly on a Hercules replacement. If the project goes onto rocks, then India (currently a big buyer of 130Js) could present huge potential
ACC…you point out the BRIC nations as being potential customers then shoot down the possibility of them buying the airplane with the exception of Russia and India–but then go on and point out that it would take the collapse of the joint project for them to end up buying the airplane.
it just won’t happen! Russia can always fall back on the AN-70. India is starting to buy more and more US products.
but lets talk about the Russian AN-70 again.
thats the real threat. the AN-70 will be cheaper than the A400 and has similar performance characteristics. the choice for customers in the future will be plentiful. we haven’t even mentioned the plane that the Japanese are working on!
long story short…even with cost reductions it just won’t be enough.
It cannot carry a fully-kitted FRES-SV so what is the point of the Euro-Turkey? More C-130Js and C-17s please…!
Hi Solomon,
Have a look again what this part in my contribution says (English must be very different this and that side of the Atlantic?) “you point out the BRIC nations as being potential customers then shoot down the possibility of them buying the airplane with the exception of Russia and India–but then go on and point out that it would take the collapse of the joint project for them to end up buying the airplane.”
- from there on we agree
- and if the projects collapses, it sure won’t be down to a bad starting point (existing Russian designs)
- more “if’s”: Had Europe taken the P&W offer on the A400 engines, we would have an operational fleet by now (and flooding the export market… it is a pity that pork barrel politics are equally rife on both sides of the Atlantic)
It’s not completely out of the question that the US may buy into the A400. They have spent a lot of money on new C130 and on sytems upgrades, but they still desire a more capable lifter.
Just building a fatter C130 sounds easy but would essentially end up being a whole new aircraft development; put that alongside the idea of knocking up a C130 class VTOL aircraft by the mid 2020s and they’ll need to find a fair bit of cash to cover it all.
They have plenty of things to spend their shrinking budget on, they don’t need to waste money developing a Lockheed A400 clone when they could just build the A400 design under licence.
in fact this “Just building a fatter C130 sounds easy but would essentially end up being a whole new aircraft development” has been done once (with much less ambition) with the 130J and it turned out to be much less forward than expected
- those memories are still fresh enough to linger
A400M for US. Not a hope in hell
Just look what happened with the Airbus tanker bid and the CSAR-X and Marine One replacement
ah yes phil but you forget they were up against boeing, for the tanker and in american eyes a win for airbus would’ve meant americans losing their jobs. With this there’s not really any competition and if they went down the assembled in the US route with lockheed then it gets more atractive.
The problem i can see is flag wavers in congress who quite frankly are just bumping their gums to maintain their seats.
BTW weren’t japan interested in A400M even more so after the earthquake?
no Paul, the Japanese haven’t expressed any interest in the A400.
the USMC hasn’t expressed an interest in the A400 and neither has the USAF.
as a matter of fact who, outside of the launch customers, has expressed an interest in the A400?
answer. NO ONE! this plane is a sales disaster. anyone interested in buying it just bought C-130J’s instead…too little, too late, too expensive….
Sol, you can’t call the A400 a turkey at this stage
Go and have a read of the history of the C17, it makes EADS look like amateurs in the over cost and over time stakes
i stand corrected but i absolutely despise the way that EADS goes about developing its products.
every item in its line up is a ‘tweener’ its either larger by a bit than the competition or smaller.
it wasn’t aiming at a sweet spot in the development of this airplane, it was aiming to offer just a bit more than the C-130 with the hopes that its price wouldn’t put it into C-17 territory.
they haven’t succeeded.
additionally no one has answered my question. besides pundits and EADS, which air arm has expressed an interest in the airplane? you’re TD, not a turkey but it is definitely not attracting interest….even the much maligned (unfairly so too) F-35 has nations outside of the launch partners looking, inquiring and hinting at buying it.
If the US wanted A400m a political fudge to do it would be licensing it. It wouldn’t be cheap but it would perhaps be cheaper than doing their own thing.
I keep wondering about this aircraft; if you remodeled the wing to take turbofans rather turboprops would you get something with better range and efficiency? And aircraft for nations who can’t stretch to a C-17 but with no intention of tactical landings, and for nations who buy the regular A400m and want some commonality with other aircraft, as an MPA platform, air refueling, etc. That’d have some export potential surely?
a400m has received requests for information publicly from both Chile and the usaf. It would be somewhat difficult to offer production slots to non partner nations for several years as most are not in a position to defer a/c slot to do there ageing fleets and I would not expect sales outside that group prior to 2016 as a result. a400m sits around 100m pounds so is very much between c17 and c130 and sits capability wise exactly were it customers want it.
I would have the raf take up germans 10 delivery slots too. c17 is not universally popular in the US either as its seen as lacking the continental range required for there global strategic transports compared to the c5.
really Mark?
sorry stud but i would love the link to the article that states that the USAF has sought to buy A400′s! they’re catching hell for shutting down the C-17 line. i’d love to see what Congress and the lobbyist have to say about doing that then buying an EADS offering! even Australia…seemingly a natural to buy the A400, bought C-17′s instead.
as far as the sweet spot, you’re talking about size. i’m talking about price vs capability. when you’re talking A400 vs. C-17 vs. C-130 you’re talking about a plane that costs almost as much as a C-17, but carries less…costs almost three times as much as a C-130 but carries just a bit more…
it just doesn’t make fiscal sense.
@paulg the Airbus tanker was to be built in the US snd in fact had a higher US content than the Boing 767 which has a large Korea and Japanese content.
The fact is the US only like competion if it results in a US owned company winning.
This is one reason why I think the T45 was the right decision and why I think we should dump the F35
Hi Phil,
I agree with the first two, but how does dumping F35 automatically follow?
“The fact is the US only like competion if it results in a US owned company winning.
This is one reason why I think the T45 was the right decision and why I think we should dump the F35″
incorrect Phil. under the previous version of the 767 tanker that was true but Boeing put lessons learned from the 787 debacle (near debacle) and got more state side vendors. if the UK wants to dump the F-35, i would almost welcome the move.
Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada and India are about to buy the airplane and if every EU country involved in the program dumps it then the USAF and USMC would move forward with those slots. Turkey would have the only stealth fighter in western europe and the dynamics of that would prove to be most entertaining.
as it is, i’ve been waiting for TD to write a post on where he sees europe in the future with regards to defense issues.
the US is about reorient towards the Pacific and the EU is about to get behind fortress europe. i’m sure he disagrees but i’d love to see his rationale. quite honestly outside of the smaller european countries (Romania, Poland and a few others) i just don’t see credible defense spending or anyone calling for it.
thats what makes all these calls for the US to buy these products so amusing. europe is cutting back on these orders and wants the US to subsidize european industry!
Hi Solomon,
Excellent discussion points. On a couple of details:
- F35 is a credible candidate in Japan, but India …really?
Did you look into relative defence spending figures (for Europe), or is the list just covering those that are taking ABM interceptors onto their soil
-Romania, Poland ?
Solomon
Didnt say they were buying anything i said information was requested in much the same way as you said “even the much maligned (unfairly so too) F-35 has nations outside of the launch partners looking, inquiring and hinting at buying it.”
As with tanker its the congressmen from the pacfic north west and Chicago jumping up and down wonder why? Those in Alabama I bet would have loved a330 tankers thought thats not democrats country.
a330 was a tanker available now against a paper design which ill bet is late but you need to keep the Boeing design teams doing something as it been out manoeuvred at ever turn by airbus for several years now. But actually a gd portion of the US tanker is built around the world including in the UK.
a400m cost about 110m pounds and carries twice that of the c130J costing about 50m pounds and c17 carries just over twice as much as a400m and costs about 165m pounds. Both a400m and C17 cruise about the same speed with comparable range at MTOW though a400m will be cheaper to operate and offers a outsized cargo requirement which is significantly better than c130 and at a price affordable to more nations than c17. Australia went for c17 because it needed out-sized cargo now it could wait for a400m.
Mark.
i’m from the south in the US. the elected officials of all the southern states banded together to try and get the A330 built down here.
your figures as to cost of the C-17 are in error. how you get that the cost of the A400 at 110m pounds is astounding.
ACC.
the F-35B makes sense for India because they’re a Harrier operator. they also are seeking to have an amphibious force projection capability.
also when i talk about the smaller nations being more relevant in future defense scenarios what i’m talking about is the differences in mentality. the US isn’t the only nation scarred from the decades plus long battle in Afghanistan.
the UK is just as tired. the difference is that the US sees a major threat in China and Europe doesn’t. the smaller european countries sees a threat in Russia and old europe doesn’t.
that sees the smaller countries being more dynamic militarily in the near term than the larger ones. thus forging stronger ties militarily between them and the US.
Sol, I think India is moving away from STOVL so F35C is more likely for them than F35B, that said, they have the Mig 29′s for their carriers!
Trying to apply logic to Indian military equipment procurement will have you going round in circles
Thats probably a fair assessment of the East European countries, they still have the big bear on their borders so not surprisingly see things a little different from say the UK, France, Italy or Spain.
The US is going to be looking to the Pacific and seeing less and less importance in military cooperation with Europe but when it comes to the Middle East, interests often coincide, which is why the majority of ISAF nations are from ‘old NATO’ and not many from Asia, the US’s new/greater sphere of interest
So a pretty patchy picture.
I tell you what is interesting though, the changing landscape of gas and oil production and how this will change strategy for everyone, thinking of shale gas in the US and Canada, oil in the Falklands etc
All very interesting, if off topic, stuff
ps
Trying to get comparative costs of different aircraft is fraught with variation, you might be surprised at the export cost of a C17 though, and how much they cost to run
What! You guys agree on something?
Anyway, the rebuilding of the Polish armed forces (even though in a fiscal tight-jacket) is probably the most apparent expression of the dynamic mentality on the European scene that Sol was referring to
… Turkey doing lots of stuff, but that really is beyond Europe already
ha ha
Here’s another one
We both think F35B is the optimal solution for the UK
ACC,
why do you say that what Turkey is doing is beyond Europe?
Hi Solomon,
You perhaps expect me to say that only a small fraction of Turkey is in Europe. That is an irrelevant measure. You may have read my recent contribution how three countries are pursuing regional hegemony in the Middle East: Iran (dominates the US press), Egypt (has temporarily dropped out because of internal focus)and Turkey (has upped the ante in recent years). Saudi Arabia is not a player as it used to be(they have loadsa money, but there are more people in Yemen than in the Kingdom).
You may want to correlate these statistics with the carbon reserves in the area (some lying to the north of the area we are talking about, but immediately adjoining as for geography):
Turkey c. 55,000,000
Uzbekistan 24,000,000 (90% of total country pop.)
Kazakstan 11,000,000 (70% of total country pop.)
Azerbaijan 9,047,000
Turkmenistan 4,500,000 (90% of the total country pop.)
Kyrgyzstan 4,500,000 (90% of the total country pop.)
So there is a strong cultural link, a strong economic motive and increasingly (having been cold-shouldered for so long by the EU) the political will to strive for a Turkish Commonwealth (I wouldn’t use the term Greater Turkey as that would somehow imply a unitary state).
So how does this manifest itself on the military side: They have just finished the design of their own cruise missile (guess why they keep such numbers of ancient Phantoms in service), they have just bought the Mangusta (I mean lock, stock and barrel, not just x helicopters).
You can read a lot of interesting detail on http://www.globalfirepower.com/ where the nations are ranked (for the headlined topic) by 45 diverse factors. See where Turkey comes up
1
United States
11
Brazil
2
Russia
12
Iran
3
China
13
Germany
4
India
5
United Kingdom
6
Turkey
7
South Korea
8
France
9
Japan
10
Israel
I added Iran (for the geography),Germany (for the European dimension in this topic) and Brazil (for our very recent BRICs discussion) to the list of Top Ten.
“Beyond Europe” as in focussing on issues and areas that are outside Europe, for short answer.
But Europe (and the USA) should pay attention. Instead of swing votes, we could talk about “swing states”. You will also find interesting CIA scenarios for this area (of global importance) if you look under Resource Wars
2 countries seperated by a common langauge, interested and buying 2 different things!
http://alert5.com/2011/05/23/japan-new-zealand-made-inquiries-on-a400m/
ACC cancelling our F35 is linked only in as far as they don’t buy our kit why should we buy theirs?
As I think it is an overhyped overpriced aircraft then we can do better.
Solomon not sure what you meant by Boing learning from the first competition. My understating was that the Airforce simply changed the requirements to match that if the 767. As we still don’t know if they are ti be built on new or existing aircraft I doubt whether anything has changed with regard to the US content. If they are using existing aircraft then the US content will be as the rest if the 767 fleet which has a much lower US content then the Airbus 330 bid!
USA Buying A400m, bit of a joke really? I don’t think that is going to happen. As for the A400m, I’m fine with it, yes its had delays and problems but surely not as bad as other aircraft. Plus when was the last time we Europe built a transport plane from scratch?
We seem to be thinking about short term here, while production will have to stop because the partners have their aircraft, it may have to open up again to build a new version for the partners when the A400m goes out of service and you never know when other countries C130 bite the dust or just aren’t hacking it they could still go for A400m, providing enough interest from multiple countries.
Going for A400m makes sense in my opinion, a fleet of A400m will probably last longer then a small fleet of C17 (After all if the C17 can carry more why buy more)
Should we be worried about Airbus military exports as long the partners get what they want? Exports are always a nice thing but we should never always think “Think about the exports”
While other countries are buying C130, I suspect they won’t deploy as much as us (USA will always deploy more, while Europe will deploy similar or less than us) Plus it all depends on the geographical location and what the countries think is a threat.
There is a lot more to buying a transporter than money. After all you don’t buy a C17 for special forces to jump out from? Think about other equipment and its servicing abilities, ie if you’ve got large things that need transporting to and from the UK to other areas, think about transporting something that is getting hammered in the amount of flying, like ….Chinooks!
look through the veneer of solomon and co’s american pov and you see that really, the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to whom it should partner up to and focus on…
I think its very early yet to see how far A400M goes, from the outset it was a European go at being more self-sufficient when it comes to air-transport, it doesnt matter really if the US is interested or not, I am just happy we’ll be havig the best of both worlds…even in fewer numbers than we should have.
In US service, the C-17 is quite cheap to operate. Great value for money.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/exclusive-us-air-force-combat.html
Case against the a US A400 is that they already have a great mix of air lift options. The all-round capability of A400 is probably not needed.
Also, future armour programs in US seem to be suggesting something heavier than what A400 can carry – tac lift of armour was unrealistic in the first place.