via EADS Press Release.
The second production Airbus Military A400M has successfully completed its first engine runs as it begins final preparation for its maiden flight later this month.It occurred to me that the real problem with the A400 is how its been marketed. From the very beginning they've taken aim at the C-130 in particular and the C-17 in general.
The aircraft, known as MSN8, is now undergoing taxying trials outside the A400M Final Assembly Line in Seville, Spain.
Airbus Military expects to complete four A400M aircraft in 2013 and will deliver MSN8 to the French Air Force in the third quarter of the year.
That was a mistake. Perhaps a deadly mistake when it comes to the production/sales success of this airplane. The reason for this is relatively simple. EADS has always made it money by developing 'tweener' airplanes...in other words airplanes between two different classes of a rivals product. They did the same here. The problem was that they chose to make false comparisons.
They should have simply said that the airplane was designed to fill a gap in the market and touted it as a SUCCESSOR to the C-141...but with more rough field capability.
That would have been a win for the program and the results would probably be an easier gateway to selling some examples to the USAF and other air arms around the world.
Marketing. Real simple but most companies screw it up.
The only thing the A400M dose is just replaces the C-141B, It's why the A400M will never compete with the C-130J or the C-17. It will only fulfill what was the C-141B
ReplyDelete"They should have simply said that the airplane was designed to fill a gap in the market and touted it as a SUCCESSOR to the C-141...but with more rough field capability."
ReplyDeleteWell said.
That's why countries who can't afford a High end C-17 or a C-130J, they can get an A400M. Though the A400M will be an inbetween aircraft and it's a direct replacement of the C-141B. I can see some countries like the New Zealand, Philippines or some Central to South American Countries getting an A400M because it has the mix of High end C-17 with the low end of the C-130J
DeleteThe A400m is designed to be a direct replacement to the C-130 and if given enough time it will achieve this.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest flaw with A400M isn't the marketing but the sclerotic politically led development process and its effect on the design costs. You know that the wingspan of A400m is sub-optimally designed to match current C-130 hangars? Or that the Germans insisted on a heavy-duty winch on the rear roof?
Development costs need to be sunk into the first few tranches of airframes and modern development costs are only going upwards (even for turboprop airlift)
Assuming that the programme staggers on with enough orders to maintain tooling (I don't know the number of airframes-per-year that would be) the day will come that the development costs have been amortized and an improved Mk2 version can be offered.
The venerable C-130 (J,K,L,M?) however has reached the end of its development cycle. Just as the C-47 had when Lockheed first put pencil to paper in the 50s.
The desire for capability drives infrastructure. This is why the Panama canal, passenger lounges and the weight of armour keeps getting bigger.
Providing that the programme can be kept open, Boeing will end up licence building these for the US market and the C-130 will be as ubiquitous as the C-47 once was.
I agree if A400 makes enough sales to keep going i will end up replacing C130 fleets as in transport there is always market for heavier lifter than C130 especially now that every vehicle that was designed to be C-130 compatible(all 8x8 APC's) carries ad-on armor that makes them to heavy to lift with C-130.
ReplyDeleteHow capable western airlift is we can see every day as Russians transport NATO gear in their heavy lifters.
I think the Russian & Ukranan super heavy rental market only existed because of a handful of Western policy mistakes and a certain enormous strip of concrete.
DeleteI can't help but wonder how long a handful of blended wing super heavy transports would take to recoup their design costs. How many kittens could be saved with only half the pork barreling of the C-5?
The main issue with the A400M from my perspective is that it costs about the same as a C-17 while being significantly less capable and costs more than twice as much as a C-130J. It's also not at all clear that this exact class of aircraft is really what the market requires.
ReplyDeleteOriginally it was supposed to replace the C-160. Basically a European C-130 class aircraft. It morphed into something far larger. If one operates it then a smaller tactical transport in some numbers is still required and the A400M is simply not a strategic air lifter so one still needs to operate, or occasionally lease, larger aircraft. When the RAF is operating the A400M, C-130J, and C-17 all at the same time we'll have a far better idea of relative capability vs cost. Right now it simply looks like a capable aircraft that is simply far too expensive to be cost effective.
Germany should have gone with the An-70 a dozen years ago and gotten a more capable aircraft at half the price. All their studies indicated this and they simply accepted the A400M plan under pressure from France.