Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: More bad news for EADS and AIRBUS
HERALD1357    1/28/2009 8:54:46 AM
Mismanagement, technological and financial, is killing two vital programs: the A-400 and the A-380. And I thought that LockMart was a den of thieves! Story links to follow. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
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
 
UDPATE 2-EADS wants A400M contract change, adds delay
Fri Jan 9, 2009 4:51pm EST
 

(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," E
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Fiascoes as reported in the news.   1/28/2009 9:05:30 AM
 
Airbus A400M military transport reportedly too heavy and weak
 

Published: 12 Jan 09 12:39 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/money/20090112-16705.html

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

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 ([email protected])

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

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

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
 
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:
 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

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:

 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.


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
 
 
 

 
 
 
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:

 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.




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
1 2



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics