France doing all it can to save A400M -minister

Who really pulls the strings at Airbus? Its clearly France. I wonder if they are making threats over future workshare with the A400M member countires to keep them in line?

PARIS, May 14 (Reuters) - France is doing everything it can to save the much-delayed A400M military transport aircraft programme at Airbus, Defence Minister Herve Morin said on Thursday. Morin's comments come a day after Britain, one of seven countries to have ordered a total of 180 of the planes, said it remained committed to the programme, though "not at any cost".

"I'm doing everything I can to save this programme," Morin said on LCI television, adding that he had proposed a meeting on the subject with partner countries within the next 10 days. "It's far from being a done deal," he said, defending the programme as "a magnificent industrial project".
"We are the only ones in the world making this kind of aircraft so we absolutely have to succeed." The A400M, Europe's biggest military project, is already three to four years behind schedule. Airbus has indicated the first flight will occur no later than February 2010.

www.iii.co.uk...

It always has been France who pulls the strings Fred, ever since the UK stupidly ceded leadership to them in the '60's (I think I have posted before how the A300 was a Hawker Siddeley design).

The RAF has already indicated a desire for a larger fleet of C-17's than the 6 it has a present and has also said that it would accept C-130's if necessary as well.

I can see Germany, for one, taking a similar line and probably the only country as desperate as France for the A400M to succeed is Spain because they benefit greatly from it.

I think France trying to chuck its weight around would be a mistake as what the programme needs is unity from all partners, if threats are issued we, for one, could just cut our losses and buy American, even though I personally would prefer to see the A400M in service. The UK's leadership in wing work was only ever guaranteed while BAE held a 20% stake in the company and as we jknopw that is long gone.

For the spoutings that Airbus is the only company in the world making a plane like that, they would do well to heed that, actually, we do have a choice and it is not an entirely unattractive one.

Indeed, Airbus IS the only company in the world making such an aircraft, the question is..... is that aircraft another Short Belfast (aka Belslow).

It would appear that the RAF is finding that what it really needs is the C-17 (bearing in mind current and projected British deployments - from the Falklands to Afghanistan) - not a 'double Hercules' - and that the tasks now being undertaken by RAF C-17s would not be possible with A400, for example the delivery of aircraft to and from the Falklands.

I'm sorry to say that the whole A400 program looks like becoming another Belfast - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but the formula just didn't fit the tasks needing done. This also raises doubts about the original specification not foreseeing current requirements., ie;- the bulk of operations being outside Europe.

Dare I suggest that with France now a full member of NATO again, that they will also soon discover that they need C-17 rather than A400.

The Winged Wombat

Yes, I do believe France has the pull on this program. It was the French that demanded the engines be Euro and not Pratt Canada.

A400M is a good plane and ticks many of the right boxes, but also ensures that the Europeans retain a key industrial capability. If the Brits had had there way then such capability would have been divested years ago and the Europeans would be entirely a client of the US.

I say "good for the French".

Rant over.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
A400M is a good plane and ticks many of the right boxes, but also ensures that the Europeans retain a key industrial capability. If the Brits had had there way then such capability would have been divested years ago and the Europeans would be entirely a client of the US.

I say "good for the French".

Rant over.

Regards

US wasnt even bidding on the engines for it, the one that did not get the award was Pratt CANADA, who submitted a cheaper bid too but still lost. A400 would have been well into its flight test program by now most likely if they had selected the Canadian bid, plus probably gotten orders from Canada out of it too.

Good for the French, in causing it to have a huge delay? And its not a plane, not yet at least until it flies.

And if it gets cancelled over this, will you still think it was a good idea? Europe will always have jet turbine manufacturing, it wasnt like that was depending on the A400.


[edit on 20-5-2009 by firepilot]

reply to post by firepilot


Its was more involved than that. P&W Canada submitted a much more compedative bid, AIRBUS aka the French allowed thier group to not only review the P&W bid, but also rebid to win the contract.

marshalls also have a rather large chunk of blame in regarding the handling of the engine test feckup as well - a mickey mouse outfit if i ever saw one

I think its been a bigger issue than it was thought is the requirment to certify it to civil standards, which isn't normally done for miltary aircraft (correct me if I'm wrong)
www.flightglobal.com...

The main competion to the A400M is still the C-130, look at what is being replaced. The C-17 couldn't really do the same job and you wouldn't be able to buy them in the needed numbers.

The C-17 gives a new capability which is increasily becoming nice to have, but most countries can't afford enough of them and most countries operations are more locally based until Iraq and Afganistan happened which still only effects a limited number of countries..

Originally posted by firepilot
A400 would have been well into its flight test program by now most likely if they had selected the Canadian bid, plus probably gotten orders from Canada out of it too.

Not even close.


The only reason the engines are getting the blame is because they are external to Airbus.


Why would you do a total redesign if the only problem was the engines?

A400M is too heavy , not enough range vs cargo load and the cargo load isn`t as advertised.

Should have bought the Antonov An-70 all along.

It has 50 tonne Payload over 3,800nm at 400knots, or 20,000 tonne payload from a 600 metre dirt strip over 2050 nautical miles. Freight hold 4 metres wide by 4.1 metres tall.

Big enough for any utility helicopter and a third the price of an A400M

You could buy five An-70 for the price of a C-17 Globemaster.

reply to post by sy.gunson


might be an issue with the propfan though , but im sure ukraine with a bi enough order can do something about that

The biggest drawback with the An-70 is lack of FADEC on the engines. It means you need a flight engineer, but a deal could be nutted out. The Ukraine needs and wants support from the West and a big order would help them immensely.

Not only that but it would be value for money.

USA backs Boeing and Lockheed therefore wont support purchasing the An-70

The European Union is into Pork Barrel politics so they would rather support a grossly overpriced and overweight A400M with less performance than the An-70.

Airbus Requires ‘Realism’ on A400M Delivery, CEO Writes in FT

May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS has asked its European partners in the A400M military air transport program for ``a greater degree of realism'' in order to enable delivery of ``the aircraft we all want at a sensible price,'' Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders writes in the Financial Times.

For Airbus to prosper, European governments need to agree on cross-border military aircraft programs similar to the European civil aviation ventures started 40 years ago when the first Airbus airplane was developed, Enders said.

``Massive investments needed on future aircraft are putting Airbus and its main competitor under considerable strain,'' Enders writes, while ``new orders are faltering and no one can confidently predict an upturn.''
www.bloomberg.com...