More bad news for EADS and AIRBUS

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

HERALD1357 Fiascoes as reported in the news. 1/28/2009 9:02:34 AM

I take no credit for finding these news items dug up by another friend, that he brought to my attention by his separate posting..

Herald

From Reuters.

UDPATE 2-EADS wants A400M contract change, adds delay

Fri Jan 9, 2009 4:51pm EST

Email | Print |

| Reprints | Single Page

[-] Text [+]

(Adds detail, background)

By James Regan and Tim Hepher

PARIS, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA), seeking to bolster a troubled European military project, called on Friday for a renegotiated contract with NATO nations and indicated the A400M airlifter would not be ready before 2012.

The plane -- designed to plug gaps in transport capacity in conflict zones like Afghanistan or to carry out humanitarian missions -- has been hit by delays in building its massive turbo-prop engines, sparking a public row with suppliers.

EADS has in turn been unable to meet its obligations to seven European NATO countries that ordered the plane in the largest single European arms purchase in 2003, placed through procurement agency OCCAR.

In a statement after markets closed on Friday, EADS said it wanted to "discuss the programme schedule along with changes to other areas of the contract including in particular certain technical characteristics."

People familiar with the 20 billion-euro ($27.4 billion) project have said it includes extensive customisation to meet national military priorities.

So far 192 A400Ms have been ordered from the original seven nations -- Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey -- and export customers Malaysia and South Africa.

EADS last year effectively halted production and abandoned efforts to predict the timing of the first flight after postponements, saying it could not set a schedule until engine makers gave more guarantees.

The engine consortium led by Rolls Royce (RR.L) and France's Safran (SAF.PA) hit back by blaming Airbus for the delays.

Airbus has proposed resuming production of the aircraft only once "adequate maturity" was reached based on test flights, EADS said on Friday.

The first A400M delivery would then come some three years after the first flight -- which was already not expected before the second half of this year -- instead of about two years.

"Airbus Military is still working with the engine consortium to firm up a date for the first flight," EADS said.

EADS said last month it was merging its military transport assets into its Airbus civil planemaker to bring it under the same roof and ultimately under the control of Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders.

FINANCIAL IMPACT UNCLEAR

Industry analysts have estimated the programme is already running up to 24 months late. The first A400M was due to have been delivered to France in 2009.

The new estimates indicate that the plane would not be ready before 2012 in the event that it makes a maiden flight in 2009.

EADS added that it was not currently able to determine all the financial implications of its new plans for the programme.

"Airbus Military and EADS will only be able to reliably determine all financial implications once a committed industrial plan, including the availability of systems, is fully stabilized and once OCCAR's position on the proposal is known," it said.

An EADS spokesman declined further comment.

The delays have triggered disputes over whether there should be penalties paid to governments by EADS, which has so far taken some 1.7 billion euros of provisions to pay for the delays.

France and Germany clashed over the issue last autumn, with Berlin insisting EADS should cough up penalties as agreed.

The row is seen as a key test of reforms to top arms deals.

The 2003 contract marked a break with the traditional pattern of arm purchases in that it was designed on commercial terms with built-in penalties for delivery delays. But analysts say the A400M has shown how fragile such contracts can be.

Airbus, recovering from financial pressures caused by delays to its A380 civil superjumbo two years ago, says the contract is too restrictive and engine makers should share some of the risk.

Critics of the project also blame governments for seeking to protect European jobs by insisting on a local engine from a new consortium rather than buying a ready model built by Pratt & Whitney Canada, a unit of United Technologies (UTX.N).

Airbus Military carried out the first flight test of an engine destined for the four-engine A400M last month by mounting it on the wing of a C-130 Hercules. But the first prototype of the A400M itself remains grounded in Seville, Spain.

The TP400 engine is the largest turbo-prop ever built in the West.

The head of Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), the Pentagon's number one supplier, told Reuters last month that the A400M delays could generate new sales for Lockheed's C-130J transport plane. ($1=.7312 Euro) (Additional reporting by Jean-Michel Belot; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ouch!

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Fiascoes as reported in the news. 1/28/2009 9:05:30 AM

News story from THE LOCAL

Airbus A400M military transport reportedly too heavy and weak

Published: 12 Jan 09 12:39 CET
Online: link

The Airbus A400 military transport plane is too heavy and does not deliver on performance, the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper reported on Monday.

Lufthansa crew strikes in Frankfurt and Berlin - National (28 Jan 09)
Germany may follow France with aid for Airbus clients - Money (27 Jan 09)
'Peep show' airport scanners could be sold - National (27 Jan 09)

The FTD cited sources which said the current version of the A400M can carry only 29-30 tonnes of material, instead of an expected 32 tonnes, and that it is itself 12 tonnes overweight.

The European Aeronautic Defence Space Company, Airbus' parent company, will have to completely revise its plans, the newspaper said. EADS acknowledged recently that the first delivery of an A400M would be delayed by three years, but did not give a precise date.

A total of 180 of the aircraft have been ordered so far for ?20 billion ($26.8 billion) by OCCAR, the European organisation for military cooperation that represents seven countries.

AFP (news@thelocal.de)

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Fiascoes as reported in the news. 1/28/2009 9:07:37 AM

From the Khaleez Times.

EADS denies mulling collapse of A400M project

(Reuters)

23 January 2009

PARIS - European aerospace group EADS on Friday denied a report that it was preparing for a possible collapse of the 20 billion euro ($25.91 billion) A400M military aircraft programme as it tries to renegotiate late delivery penalties.

The Financial Times Deutschland reported potential losses due to delays had forced the Airbus parent company to question its role in Europe?s biggest single arms development.

?According to FTD information, the mass of A400M problems is prompting a discussion at EADS over whether the project should be maintained,? the newspaper said.

?A withdrawal—which customers as well could demand—threatens to reverse the transaction.?

EADS denied any internal scenarios to escape the project.

?There is no discussion within EADS about a scenario to withdraw from the A400M programme, contrary to what has been circulated in the press,? the Airbus parent said in a statement.

EADS shares fell more than 4 percent to 12.35 euros.

EADS said this month the project would be delayed by at least three years and called for talks over contract terms.

Airbus blames engine makers led by Rolls Royce and Safran while the engine makers say it is Airbus that has botched the testing of the West?s largest ever turbo-prop.

The FTD quoted the head of Germany?s air force as saying deliveries to the Luftwaffe of the troop and cargo plane would be delayed for as much as four years to 2014.

?That is a disastrous development,? he was reported saying.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Fiascoes as reported in the news. 1/28/2009 9:10:05 AM

Comment from Herald.

Herald

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer What a shame!!! 1/28/2009 11:01:30 AM

That all doesnt make for very pleasant reading!!!! An aircraft with the A400's (Proposed) capabilities is sorely needed right now!!!! The C130 series have given stellar service over the years but its time to bridge the gap between them and the C17's.

Quote Reply

giblets Picture it: 1993 1/28/2009 12:26:39 PM

The C-17 design remains immature, but typical of an aircraft at this stage of development.

This design immaturity is evidenced by the large number of engineering changes still back-

Happy days, takes me back to 1993!

Anyone remember this:

In late 1993, the DoD gave the contractor two years to solve production and cost overrun problems or face termination of the contract after the delivery of the fortieth aircraft. By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion on the development phase of the program

Those stupid European Governments signed a fixed price contract with EADS so the european tax payer would not have to fork out for delays!

The C-17 was still in testing, the wings broke in testing at 128% of max load (instead of 150%).

It was overweight and expected to not make its payload range specifications.

There was a funding shortfall of over $500million.

There were 5,800 design changes to be made.

Quote Reply

giblets Picture it: 1993 1/28/2009 12:45:35 PM

The C-17 design remains immature, but typical of an aircraft at this stage of development.

This design immaturity is evidenced by the large number of engineering changes still back-

Happy days, takes me back to 1993!

Anyone remember this:

Those stupid European Governments signed a fixed price contract with EADS so the european tax payer would not have to fork out for delays!

The C-17 was still in testing, the wings broke in testing at 128% of max load (instead of 150%).

It was overweight and expected to not make its payload range specifications.

There was a funding shortfall of over $500million.

There were 5,800 design changes to be made.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 1/28/2009 1:02:29 PM

The C-17 design remains immature, but typical of an aircraft at this stage of development.

This design immaturity is evidenced by the large number of engineering changes still back-

Happy days, takes me back to 1993!

Anyone remember this:

Those stupid European Governments signed a fixed price contract with EADS so the european tax payer would not have to fork out for delays!

The C-17 was still in testing, the wings broke in testing at 128% of max load (instead of 150%).

It was overweight and expected to not make its payload range specifications.

There was a funding shortfall of over $500million.

There were 5,800 design changes to be made.

I remember. U alsdo remkember that the engineers at McDonald hadn't gambled that they could masdter composites or had gambled on a paper engine either.

This program, the A-400, is at its heart headed for a manufacturing disaster because of FRENCH hubrus.

They can still save it, the A-400, but they have to call in outside expert help (Boeing or Scaled Composites) to fix that damned WINGBOX.

Rolls Royce will fix the engine problem. They just need time to test and proof it.

Its the airframe that is the aircraft critical fail. And that you can lay at the feet of EADS and AIRBUS management aND engineers.

You cannot apply airliner logic to a military transport.

Herald

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 !@#$%^&*() typos! 1/28/2009 1:06:02 PM

The C-17 design remains immature, but typical of an aircraft at this stage of development.

This design immaturity is evidenced by the large number of engineering changes still back-

Happy days, takes me back to 1993!

Anyone remember this:

Those stupid European Governments signed a fixed price contract with EADS so the european tax payer would not have to fork out for delays!

The C-17 was still in testing, the wings broke in testing at 128% of max load (instead of 150%).

It was overweight and expected to not make its payload range specifications.

There was a funding shortfall of over $500million.

There were 5,800 design changes to be made.

I remember. I also remember that the engineers at McDonald hadn't gambled that they could master composites or had gambled on a paper engine either.

This program, the A-400, is at its heart headed for a manufacturing disaster because of FRENCH hubris.

They can still save it, the A-400, but they have to call in outside expert help (Boeing or Scaled Composites) to fix that damned WINGBOX.

Rolls Royce will fix the engine problem. They just need time to test and proof it.

Its the airframe that is the aircraft critical fail. And that you can lay at the feet of EADS and AIRBUS management aND engineers.

You cannot apply airliner logic to a military transport.

Herald

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 !@#$%^&*() typos! 1/28/2009 1:07:13 PM

McDonnell not McDonald!

Sheesh!

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer Herald - You will find this interesting 1/28/2009 2:07:37 PM

I remember. U alsdo remkember that the engineers at McDonald hadn't gambled that they could masdter composites or had gambled on a paper engine either.

This program, the A-400, is at its heart headed for a manufacturing disaster because of FRENCH hubrus.

They can still save it, the A-400, but they have to call in outside expert help (Boeing or Scaled Composites) to fix that damned WINGBOX.

Rolls Royce will fix the engine problem. They just need time to test and proof it.

Its the airframe that is the aircraft critical fail. And that you can lay at the feet of EADS and AIRBUS management aND engineers.

You cannot apply airliner logic to a military transport.

Herald

Herald,

Regarding highlighted above, you will love this!!!!

Towards the end of last year I attended the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) convention in Baltimore MD. As its a Guard convention both teh Army and Airforce were both fully supported the with ALL the Land and Air Def Contractors there in strength.

In the morning before show opened to visitors I was cruising around doing the networking thing and generally BSing with other engineers etc. Was in the Boeing Booth and what should I over hear but a conversation between some senior Boeing and EAD's folks regarding some sort of "Collaboration" regarding A400M!!!! It was quite informal, however discussion went along the line of "Lets not let the current Tanker "Unpleasentness" get in the way of what could be a mutually benificial business relationship"!!!!!!!

I initially thought purely along the line of a marketing relationship to enable EADS to break into the US market for transport aircraft. But as you mentioned, the A400M has legitimate technical issues which Boeing expertise may be well suited to solve.

Quote Reply

doggtag 1/28/2009 2:54:18 PM

Couldn't agree with you more on that.
NATO countries have often leased carrier service by An-124s.

Maybe next they'll recognize the An-70 (which itself has had numerous troubles) can deliver where the A400M can't (meaning, it could be in service in 2 years, maybe).

Perhaps it's time to realize that the days of these medium-capacity turboprop airlifters are over?

The J-Herc is in no way to the C-130 fleet what the Super Hornet is to previous A-D model Hornets.

It's not a lot of improvement (payload to range) over the original C-130 fleet (not enough that many would like to have: >20 tonnes to >1000km).

We had our solution back in the 1970s, in the AMST Program.

Look what we got out of it: the YC-15 led to the highly successful (what aircraft didn't mature to production without teething troubles?) C-17 Globie III.

The YC-14 (perhaps in a sincerest form of flattery) inspired the Russian An-72/An-74 "Coaler" aircraft.

These modern generation turbofans (especially those new geared designs in P&W's workshops) are certainly as fuel efficient as any turboprop, and certainly don't cause as much vibration or physical noise (the An-70 was never a quiet aircraft with its eggbeater props...how many Europeans are going to bitch when those noisy A400Ms fly over their neighborhood?).

Back to the AMSTs, something I've hit on numerous times, we were looking at payloads as high as 81,000 pounds in standard-field-length performance, and (according to Wiki), "The official RFP was issued in January 1972, asking for operations into a 2,000 feet (610 m) semi-prepared field at 500 nmi (930 km) with a 27,000 lb (12,000 kg) payload in both directions with no refueling. For comparison, the C-130 of that era required about 4,000 ft (1,200 m) for this load. "

The turbofans each aircraft there mounted, 4 P&W JT8D's in the YC-15 @ 15,500pounds thrust;

2 GE CF6-50Ds in the YC-14 @ 51,000pounds thrust,

those engines each have further evolved from those 1972 designs.

Matter of fact, a recent JT8D contract suggested they could now achieve 21,700pounds thrust, a considerably-larger comparative output than the J-Herc's AE-2100s over the orignial Hercules' T56 engines (both engines are currently rated at under 5000shp, even though the AE2100 does have more growth, that LunkMart should've sought to exploit earlier in the J-Herc design (again, my suggestion that it wasn't comparable to what the Super Hornet is when compared to A-D Hornets).

As to the CF-6s in the YC-14: the CF-6 Family has considerable growth potential over this AMST's 51,000pounds thrust.

LunkMart sold the C-27J Spartan JCA partially on engine commonality with the J-Herc, so effectively we could've marketed a new YC-14 on engine commonality with the C-5M Super Galaxy's CF6-80 series engines (59,000pounds thrust over the original C-5's TF39s of 43,000pounds thrust).

Alas, looks like we're stuck with what we got (or don't got, for the Europeans).

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 1/28/2009 2:55:45 PM

I remember. I also remember that the engineers at McDonnell hadn't gambled that they could master composites or had gambled on a paper engine either.

This program, the A-400, is at its heart headed for a manufacturing disaster because of FRENCH hubris.

They can still save it, the A-400, but they have to call in outside expert help (Boeing or Scaled Composites) to fix that damned WINGBOX.

Rolls Royce will fix the engine problem. They just need time to test and proof it.

Its the airframe that is the aircraft critical fail. And that you can lay at the feet of EADS and AIRBUS management aND engineers.

You cannot apply airliner logic to a military transport.

Herald

Herald,

Regarding highlighted above, you will love this!!!!

Towards the end of last year I attended the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) convention in Baltimore MD. As its a Guard convention both the Army and Air force were both fully supported the with ALL the Land and Air Def Contractors there in strength.

In the morning before show opened to visitors I was cruising around doing the networking thing and generally BSing with other engineers etc. Was in the Boeing Booth and what should I over hear but a conversation between some senior Boeing and EAD's folks regarding some sort of "Collaboration" regarding A400M!!!! It was quite informal, however discussion went along the line of "Lets not let the current Tanker "Unpleasantness" get in the way of what could be a mutually beneficial business relationship"!!!!!!!

Well.....I doubt that Boeing will bite. There is a lot of bitterness over the tanker deal left in the Boeing crowd.

They don't have anyone to blame, but themselves (both parties for both cases). Still I would have said: "Okay, we'll fix your bird for you, but we build the part of it that we fix here in the States, you give us work share, market share and exclusive US rights to sell the bird.

It would have given Boeing a wedge into the military transport market, and it probably was EADS best shot at avoiding the mess they are in now.

You know that when you don't have a clue about composite structures and you foul up the load bearing calcs as badly as the EADS crew did in designing the A-400M frame members? Its a lot easier to fix it in the computer than it is in the air when the test bird shows the entire world that your software and the assumptions that you used to design her was CRAP.

The A-400M should work, It really should, but it is going to take more than 5800 detail changes to fix it.

Can you say NEW WING and fuselage joint?

Herald

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 1/28/2009 3:14:36 PM

I remember. I also remember that the engineers at McDonnell hadn't gambled that they could master composites or had gambled on a paper engine either.

This program, the A-400, is at its heart headed for a manufacturing disaster because of FRENCH hubris.

They can still save it, the A-400, but they have to call in outside expert help (Boeing or Scaled Composites) to fix that damned WINGBOX.

Rolls Royce will fix the engine problem. They just need time to test and proof it.

Its the airframe that is the aircraft critical fail. And that you can lay at the feet of EADS and AIRBUS management aND engineers.

You cannot apply airliner logic to a military transport.

Herald

Herald,

Regarding highlighted above, you will love this!!!!

In the morning before show opened to visitors I was cruising around doing the networking thing and generally BSing with other engineers etc. Was in the Boeing Booth and what should I over hear but a conversation between some senior Boeing and EAD's folks regarding some sort of "Collaboration" regarding A400M!!!! It was quite informal, however discussion went along the line of "Lets not let the current Tanker "Unpleasantness" get in the way of what could be a mutually beneficial business relationship"!!!!!!!

Well.....I doubt that Boeing will bite. There is a lot of bitterness over the tanker deal left in the Boeing crowd.

It would have given Boeing a wedge into the military transport market, and it probably was EADS best shot at avoiding the mess they are in now.

The A-400M should work, It really should, but it is going to take more than 5800 detail changes to fix it.

Can you say NEW WING and fuselage joint?

Herald

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Has anybody else notiuced that this PHP code us causing text overlap and hot zone bleed over into text posts? 1/28/2009 3:17:22 PM

You got to wonder about some of the bugs in the code.

I can't find them all even when I work from Word.

Herald.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us