A400M

Just to illustrate the costs overruns and development issues of two other aircraft, does not excuse the problems with A-400. It shows that if manufacturers with a long track record of producing aircraft of this nature also find the finance and development a little tricky so what hope for a newcomer to the game.

KC-46
"On 21 July 2016, Boeing stated it would take a further $393 million charge on the KC-46 tanker program, bringing the total value of penalties to almost $1.9 billion. The charge reflects higher costs associated with the program’s current schedule and technical challenges, which include "implementation of the hardware solution to resolve the refueling boom axial load issue identified during flight testing, delays in the certification process and concurrency between late-stage development testing and initial production."

C -17
"In late 1993, the Department of Defense gave the contractor two years to solve production and cost overrun problems or face termination of the contract after the delivery of the 40th aircraft. By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion on the development phase of the program. "In April 1994, the C-17 program remained over budget, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. It failed several key criteria during airworthiness evaluation tests. Technical problems were found with the mission software, landing gear, and other areas."
 
Just to illustrate the costs overruns and development issues of two other aircraft, does not excuse the problems with A-400. It shows that if manufacturers with a long track record of producing aircraft of this nature also find the finance and development a little tricky so what hope for a newcomer to the game.

KC-46
"On 21 July 2016, Boeing stated it would take a further $393 million charge on the KC-46 tanker program, bringing the total value of penalties to almost $1.9 billion. The charge reflects higher costs associated with the program’s current schedule and technical challenges, which include "implementation of the hardware solution to resolve the refueling boom axial load issue identified during flight testing, delays in the certification process and concurrency between late-stage development testing and initial production."

C -17
"In late 1993, the Department of Defense gave the contractor two years to solve production and cost overrun problems or face termination of the contract after the delivery of the 40th aircraft. By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion on the development phase of the program. "In April 1994, the C-17 program remained over budget, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications. It failed several key criteria during airworthiness evaluation tests. Technical problems were found with the mission software, landing gear, and other areas."
All valid points and I've previously said that A400M will eventually mature into a decent and sometimes potentially very useful Strat and even Tac asset. Just as the A400M was for the RAF, the KC-46 is a political purchase for the USAF which is inferior to the A330MRRT/KC-30 variant originally selected for the KC-X requirement.

I think the difference with the C-17 however is that from the outset, everyone could see a need for such a platform and, despite it's cost, sales have been pretty positive. In contrast, the A400M is neither fish nor foul and even nations with an apparent need (eg NZ) for such a type have taken a look and seemingly walked away unimpressed.

I've never been a fan of the A400M for the RAF but I've previously predicted it would probably achieve moderate export success. However, I now accept that I was wrong and struggle to see where any new build (as opposed to the transfer of unwanted European airframes) sales will come from.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
'Tom Antonov' sounds like a Russian troll!

Regards,
MM
He isn't. Froggie, cheese eater defence journo - good source for French armed forces news.
 
He isn't. Froggie, cheese eater defence journo - good source for French armed forces news.
If they are buying 21 C-130Js, that is one hell of a slap in the face for Airbus.

Regards,
MM
 
How many times now is this Indonesia was going to sign a letter of intent to buy the A400M?

2016, again in 2017, and here we go round the bouy again.

It’s interesting that the deals always seem to involve a gov to gov deal with the French, so I rather suspect the French government are looking to sell off some of their agreed contracted build on the cheap, rather than this being actual extra builds.

It’s also interesting the reference to not being used in any military capacity. Can’t see that being a great selling point to anyone looking on, ‘must be no good, even the Indo AF won’t use them!’
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top