Thread: A400M project to be cancelled

Originally Posted by fantassin

About time to change the title of the thread to

There you go look above changed it for you :D

If anything its more Spanish than French

Is that a short enough answer, apparently I am a verbose chump so better keep the posts short?

I wonder how much Antonov would need to open up AN-70 production?

Originally Posted by leveller

Originally Posted by fantassin

About time to change the title of the thread to

There you go look above changed it for you :D

You are too kind sir !

C'est Magnifique, Mais Ce N'est Pas la Guerre

john
My Arrse !

Originally Posted by whitecity

I don't deny the A400M is a solid procurement decision for France for economic, political and military reasons. Now make a case for the UK since this is a UK military website.

Err . . . we make the wings, over a third (by value) of the engines, & some other bits - altogether at least as big a share of the aircraft as our share of the initial order, I think. We also build all the air-air refuelling kits, even though we're not buying any. We therefore get back in money coming back into the country all that we spend on it, whereas if we buy C-17 or C-130 all the money goes straight across the Atlantic, never to be seen again. A fair bit of that goes to HMG in taxes, keeping people off the dole, etc., thus reducing pressure on public spending. Any additional sales bring more money into the UK. Well, that's the economic case.

Unlike the C-130, it was designed for modern loads, not 1950s loads. It takes wider, higher, heavier loads than a C-130, & can land 'em in a lot more places than a C-17. That's useful.

We'll always be a long way down the pecking order in collaborative projects with the USA, to be shafted at will, even if there's no particular reason for it, because they know we just have to grit our teeth & take it. With other European countries, we can have as big a say as anyone else (well, as soon as our politicians grow spines, so maybe that's too much to hope for). Yes, this means not getting into badly structured projects with too many partners & stupid workshare agreements, but as someone who others want on board, because of technical skills & armed forces which buy a lot of kit by European standards, we can (if we can get over the invertebrate politician problem) insist projects don't have those flaws. This isn't an option with US-dominated projects, which are "Our terms, take it or leave it, & we may change them on a whim at any time" (see JSF).

Has it been cancelled yet?

Originally Posted by Bledlow

Originally Posted by whitecity

I don't deny the A400M is a solid procurement decision for France for economic, political and military reasons. Now make a case for the UK since this is a UK military website.

Err . . . we make the wings, over a third (by value) of the engines, & some other bits - altogether at least as big a share of the aircraft as our share of the initial order, I think. We also build all the air-air refuelling kits, even though we're not buying any. We therefore get back in money coming back into the country all that we spend on it, whereas if we buy C-17 or C-130 all the money goes straight across the Atlantic, never to be seen again. A fair bit of that goes to HMG in taxes, keeping people off the dole, etc., thus reducing pressure on public spending. Any additional sales bring more money into the UK. Well, that's the economic case.

Unlike the C-130, it was designed for modern loads, not 1950s loads. It takes wider, higher, heavier loads than a C-130, & can land 'em in a lot more places than a C-17. That's useful.

We'll always be a long way down the pecking order in collaborative projects with the USA, to be shafted at will, even if there's no particular reason for it, because they know we just have to grit our teeth & take it. With other European countries, we can have as big a say as anyone else (well, as soon as our politicians grow spines, so maybe that's too much to hope for). Yes, this means not getting into badly structured projects with too many partners & stupid workshare agreements, but as someone who others want on board, because of technical skills & armed forces which buy a lot of kit by European standards, we can (if we can get over the invertebrate politician problem) insist projects don't have those flaws. This isn't an option with US-dominated projects, which are "Our terms, take it or leave it, & we may change them on a whim at any time" (see JSF).

So you've not bothered to read up on the subject properly and just assumed some convenient 'buy british' propaganda was the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

May I suggest you take yourself back to page 1 on this thread. It's as good a place as any to start learning some more appropriate 'truths'.

Finally had a chance to read through the NAO Major Projects report 2009 published last December.

According to that, A400M costs has become classified. However, it notes that the last known figures suggested a continued purchase of 25 airframes with an expected cost increase of £657 million and a 6 year slippage from original contract. This pushes the total cost to £3,285 million or £131 million a pop. Mind you, different parts of the report indicate different dates and different cost increases.

There is no indication of the other extra costs incurred in work arounds during the 6 year slippage.

Shall we put this down as a example of SMART procurement and the benefits of European collaboration much vaunted in the SDR of 1998?

Its a depressing read isn't it, the same as the Defence Select Committee's report from a few weeks ago.

20 years of smart procurement, fast trackers, management consultancy, transformation programmes and customer centric re-organisations and the MoD is more of a basket case than it ever was.

Very depressing

I hope we learn from the A400, Horizon, Typhoon etc etc that multi partner collaborations (whoever those partners are) are always a bad idea. Partnerships, with one other, fair enough but as soon as you start putting together huge consortia it goes wrong with a depressing inevitability

[quote="whitecity"]

Originally Posted by fantassin

About time to change the title of the thread to : A-400M will go on
..........
I noticed you have still failed to make a single observation on how the A400M makes a positive contribution to the UK military.

Well, it'll be the one TACTICAL transport capable of delivering the ASCOD Scout recce vehicles anywhere close to the action, so if we don't get A400, we'd better think again and buy a lighter recce AFV? Tho that may not be a bad thing.

Trouble is, the sort of committees that handle procurement will always want to include every conceivable feature until you end up with kit that's over budget, overweight and overdue.

But the alternative to trying to get disparate European partnerships to work is to buy whatever Uncle Sam deigns to allow us to buy, at monopoly prices because they control the market. It may be cheaper to buy off the shelf now while there's a competitive market, but if Europe gives up its military hardware industry, we'll be at the mercy of the whims of American foreign policy - "Back us or we won't give export licences for..."

Yeah - US and UK have a Special Relationship .......like I have a Special Relationship with my puppy...as long as he does what he's told.

Making European co-operation work is a bitch - but I'd rather not wind up being the US of A's bitch.

Originally Posted by meridian

Its a depressing read isn't it, the same as the Defence Select Committee's report from a few weeks ago.

20 years of smart procurement, fast trackers, management consultancy, transformation programmes and customer centric re-organisations and the MoD is more of a basket case than it ever was.

Very depressing

I hope we learn from the A400, Horizon, Typhoon etc etc that multi partner collaborations (whoever those partners are) are always a bad idea. Partnerships, with one other, fair enough but as soon as you start putting together huge consortia it goes wrong with a depressing inevitability

I have never believed the 'economies of scale' argument really works in international military collaboration. Do you really get a better product at cheaper cost?

For a while now I've been intrigued by the 'true' costs of going it your own (Rafale) v collaborating (Typhoon). Many pros and cons in each of course. I know Keith Hartley up at York University has tried to work this out, but anything he reports is tainted by the knowledge that much of his research funding has come from industry itself who are, naturally, looking to have their agenda enhanced.

Look. It is doing things in Berlin

http://www.flightglobal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/157481

Sadly, German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg decided not to attend the first public flight despite Germany supposedly taking 60 of the things because he had "other engagements".

That possibly included listening to Angela Merkel announcing budgetary reductions includes a restructuring of the German armed forces running from 2011 through 2014 with “unprecedented� cuts.

Do you have another LINK ? The one above has failed to work for the last two days - well, from my computer at least!

According to this website (in French)

http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2010/0...la-france.html

Louis Gallois, the head of EADS has said to the French parliament defence committee that the first A400M would be delivered to the French AF in January 2013 and that the initial production batch of at least 10 A400M would all go to the French Air Force. This means that the first FAF A400M squadron should be operational sometimes in 2015.