C-17 or A400M for Australia?

[Todjaeger]

Not only that, but the C-130s & Transall C-160 they operate were nearing the end of their life. It's worth to note that Malaysia, Australia's neighbor, also have A-400Ms on order.
IMO though, it takes long time from the concept to initial production- if they didn't want to spend $ on a real C-130 follow-on, not the J model, what make you think they'll do so in the next decade?

You seemed to have missed the point of the A400M. It was not intended to just provide the same capabilities as the C-130, it was intended to provide longer range and greater lift than the C-130, since that was something that European air forces had been lacking. Compare the C-130 specs with the A-400M specs in terms of range and lift capacity. A C-130J has a listed range of 1,800 n miles while carrying 34,000 lbs or cargo. Also, some vehicles (like various LAV variants, etc) cannot fit inside a C-130. An A400M is expected to have a range of ~2,450 n miles while carrying ~twice the weight in cargo. Also, by having a larger internal volume than a C-130, larger sized cargo & vehicles can be carried.

As such, it is not a follow-on to the C-130, having an expanded mission profile. And yes, it can take a long time from aircraft concept to IOC. However, the service life of transport aircraft is even longer, despite accelerated usage. Plus, depending on how critical and/or long-term the aircraft requirement is expected, a closed line could be re-opened.

-Cheers

 

[riksavage]

Some contributors to this forum are missing the point.

One of the main factors driving A-400M development was the critical need for European strategic lift. Namely having the ability to deploy a new range of armored vehicles (tracked and wheeled) designed to equip medium rapid reaction brigades without having to rely on leased aircraft (C5-C17-AN124) or rely on much slower maritime shipping.

Why do you think projects projects such as FRES are being specifically designed to deal with the current asymmetrical threats and yet be capable of being carried in a A-400M. The A-400M forms part of a much larger tri-service strategic initiative driven by the need to project and support sufficient military power over greater distances in rapid time.

Saying the aircraft doesn’t fit a niche is absolute ‘claptrap’ for the following reasons:

1. The Europeans want proprietary control over there own technology;

2. The Europeans do not want to rely forever on borrowed or leased US or Russian aircraft, they want there own independent asset capable of being deployed without US say so, and

3. The A-400M is cheaper than the C17, yet offers substantial advantages over all current C130 variants.

YES the A-400M has problems, but I bet your bottom dollar over the next twenty years it will grow to dominate the market, just as the troubled A380 will eventually replace most of the current 747-400 range of planes in the civi market place.

 

[Todjaeger]

Some contributors to this forum are missing the point.

One of the main factors driving A-400M development was the critical need for European strategic lift. Namely having the ability to deploy a new range of armored vehicles (tracked and wheeled) designed to equip medium rapid reaction brigades without having to rely on leased aircraft (C5-C17-AN124) or rely on much slower maritime shipping.

Why do you think projects projects such as FRES are being specifically designed to deal with the current asymmetrical threats and yet be capable of being carried in a A-400M. The A-400M forms part of a much larger tri-service strategic initiative driven by the need to project and support sufficient military power over greater distances in rapid time.

Saying the aircraft doesn’t fit a niche is absolute ‘claptrap’ for the following reasons:

1. The Europeans want proprietary control over there own technology;

2. The Europeans do not want to rely forever on borrowed or leased US or Russian aircraft, they want there own independent asset capable of being deployed without US say so, and

3. The A-400M is cheaper than the C17, yet offers substantial advantages over all current C130 variants.

YES the A-400M has problems, but I bet your bottom dollar over the next twenty years it will grow to dominate the market, just as the troubled A380 will eventually replace most of the current 747-400 range of planes in the civi market place.

Thank you Rik, that was one of the points I was trying to make, yet apparently failing.

Now, given that Australia decided to get four C-17's, and with the Herc-H and Caribou due (overdue for the 'Bou?) for retirement, what would make more sense?

1. Purchase C-27J as a Caribou replacement and purchase some A-400M as the Hec-H replacement (not necessarily on a 1:1 basis).
2. Purchase C-27J & C-130J to replace the Caribou & Herc-H on a basically 1:1 basis.
3. Purchase a Caribou replacement (C-27J, CN-235 or -295) and start replacing the C-130H with A400M, and as the C-130J airfleet approaches retirement, begin replacing that with additional A400M.
4. Purchase additional examples of the C-17 while the line is open to increase the heavy lift component of the RAAF.

Another country in the region which IMV would benefit from an increase in weight/range lift capacity would be NZ. Right now, their C-130H's are undergoing a life extension programme AFAIK. Even with that though, the RNZAF transports are pushing past 40 years old, and the are not able to reach mainland Australia with a significant cargo given the weight/range restrictions. In such a situation either the A400M or C-17 could do well.

What might work, would be a joint purchase to establish an aircraft pool, available to both countries. I am thinking of something along the lines of the NATO E-3 or C-17 purchase. This could possibly be done via a commercial aviation company that does freight hauling. Here would be something like an A/NZ version of the US Evergreen Airlines, which IIRC is a Civilian Reserve Air fleet. HeavyLift Cargo Airlines, which is an Oz company that already does heavy/outsized cargo work comes to mind. Granted, it would likely need government assistance to purchase any A400M and/or C-17's, but that could increase RAAF and/or RNZAF transport options, without relying as much on foreign operators like Antonov Airlines which operates the An-124, and potentially without as much ongoing cost to the government.

-Cheers

 

[moahunter]

YES the A-400M has problems, but I bet your bottom dollar over the next twenty years it will grow to dominate the market, just as the troubled A380 will eventually replace most of the current 747-400 range of planes in the civi market place.

I think this is misguided Airbus love. Just like the A380 is going to be a financial disaster (as super jumbos are going to be a thing of the past - the Dreamliner is where the action is at), the A400M may very well be the same. The A400M does not really compete with the Hercules, it is designed for a role that has largely been replaced more effectivley by the combination of C17's and C130j's. But no airforce with C130j's is going to purchase A400M's (outside of Europe where political reasons affect)- it doesn't make sense to run to contrary systems for the simple transportation role. The hot-spot in the market for most air forces in the world is C130j size - as has been shown over a long period of time, which is why Embraer will compete at this size. African nations and similar, will buy this size aircraft. Yes, the A400M adds some capabilities (at the cost of much higher price), but those capabilities aren't really needed for most air forces / nations, who often choose to ship LAV's and similar anyway (for example, New Zealand has a supply ship that will be used for this purpose), and can rent on the odd occasion otherwise (subject to availability, which is why C17's have been so popular lately). The price differential is too great for a capability that will only be used once in a blue moon, which is a shame for the A400M.

 

[swerve]

Aside from the political reality that the US would not do this, I doubt the US will want to bear the inflated cost of the A400M (i.e. pay for all the mistakes in development). If by some chance the US did consider going offshore, they will choose a lower cost option, like the Embraer 390, which has a projected cost of only $50m (versus C130j $60-$70m) - this airplane could capture much of the world market...

You've really got it in for the A400M, haven't you? Can you quantify the "inflated cost", and describe the "mistakes in development", and say how they differ from other military aircraft developments?

For example, the C-17 - development funded 1981. Aircraft entered service 1993, with payload, cruise speed & range all less than originally specified. Plenty of development delays & cost overruns, enough to cause the programme to be threatened with early termination - "In December 1993, DOD agreed to buy another 12 C-17s during FY1994-FY1995, but Defense Secretary Les Aspin stated that the contract would end with the 40 aircraft then on order if McDonnell Douglas failed to resolve production and cost problems during that two-year period."

"By accepting the 1993 agreement, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly $1.5 billion on the development phase of the program. In addition, the company agreed to spend $456 million in process improvements and testing. DOD agreed to provide an additional $438 million for the program — $237 million to settle claims with McDonnell Douglas and $201 million for flight testing." $2.4 billion extra in 1994/5 - and that was on top of earlier cost overruns.

Memories are very short. When something is in service, & performing, the traumas of the process which got it there are oft forgot.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22763.pdf

 

[kato]

(as super jumbos are going to be a thing of the past - the Dreamliner is where the action is at)

... except Boeing needed a new model to replace the 25-year-old 767 design - ie the Dreamliner. Airbus has, in the same bracket, the only 15-year-old A330, and will additionally compete the Dreamliner with the A350.
In fact, the Dreamliner was only designed to combat the lower-cost, newer A330.
Boeing deliberately retracted the 747X competitor when Airbus finished the A380, seeing how they couldn't really compete with the A380 ahead time-wise as much it is.

 

[alexsa]

... except Boeing needed a new model to replace the 25-year-old 767 design - ie the Dreamliner. Airbus has, in the same bracket, the only 15-year-old A330, and will additionally compete the Dreamliner with the A350.
In fact, the Dreamliner was only designed to combat the lower-cost, newer A330.
Boeing deliberately retracted the 747X competitor when Airbus finished the A380, seeing how they couldn't really compete with the A380 ahead time-wise as much it is.

Not forgettiong that the Dreamliner is currently a bit of a nightmare. In fact the project is behaving much like Moahunters description of the Airbus products he is taking a swing at.

it wil come out at the ned of the day but it has proved to be overly ambitious on the development and delivery time table, however, I suspect this was necessary to garner sales before Airbus finally got its act together on the A350 (not their best managed proposal).

 

[moahunter]

You've really got it in for the A400M, haven't you? Can you quantify the "inflated cost", and describe the "mistakes in development", and say how they differ from other military aircraft developments?

The cost overun is currently 1.4 billion, which will be funded out of the profits of Airbus. They are going to have to sell a lot of A400M's to make that money back (a quick look at the math and you will figure out it is not possible). The first A400M won't even be operational until 2010. Most of the cost over-run is related to the engine cost - which I would consider a mistake in development. Would have been better off going the Embraer route - with a proven jet engine, for example.

... During a media tour of the new A400M assembly line recently, Airbus Military CEO Carlos Suarez conceded, “It was not wise” to begin development of the airframe and engines in parallel. Nor was it wise to sign a fixed-price development and production contract with the eight European launch nations, he added. Airbus would not make the same mistake again, he declared. EADS-Airbus has made a €1.4 billion provision for cost overruns, but Suarez hinted that the company is trying to renegotiate the terms of the contract.

http://www.ainonline.com/ain-defens...bus-a400m-chief/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[mode]=1

The c130j had cost over-runs as well, but not in the same league. Also, we don't yet know the full cost of the A400M - it still has a long way to go before it is operationally effective.

As to the Dreamliner - it has chalked up a host of orders and is the fastest selling wide-body airliner (before production), ever. While over-due, it will, and perhaps alreay has, revolutionized the skies due to its fuel efficiency. Airbus is having a very rough time with the A350 - the design has had to be modified to try to compete with the Dreamliner's technology at the demand of customers. The A380 was a huge cost over-run, in a market, that appears to be declining as twin engine jets take over for the bulk of long distance. Airbus is way behind the sales targets, they designed their Jumbo, 30 years too late, there won't be many 4 engine commercial jets left in the sky's in a decade's time, they are rapidly becoming dinosaurs.

 

[Sintra]

You have a "thing" with Airbus

Are you aware that the Financial "Break Even" Point for the A380 was set at 300 units being bought, delivered and paid? Now, go check how many have already been ordered...

About the A400M, i really did enjoy the part about the "horrible cost over run".
Airbus and the eight partners signed a FIXED COST CONTRACT in 2003 for the development and construction of 180 A-400M...
What was the Dolar/Euro exchange rate in May 2003?

And please do remind me when was the last time that Airbus had a "financial disaster". Oh yes, never...

 

[moahunter]

What was the Dolar/Euro exchange rate in May 2003?

Are you saying they sold it in US$ to European countries? That wouldn't have been smart - and even if they had, it would have been hedged.The exchange rate has nothing to do with it. I agree that the fixed contract wasn't smart though - the true cost of an A400M is a lot more than the price the Europeans governments are paying (note, cost does not always equal value).

Breakeven for A380 is more than 420 now (Airbus no longer publishes the number - a clear sign it probably won't be reached, or at least, not by a sufficient time for a sufficient profit to be made).

I think it is good to have Airbus around to provide competition in the industry. They have just been making a lot of very bad decisions of late. The A400M and A380 are products of those bad decisions. Hopefully it will turn around. Right now though, like it or not, the american aviation industry is making better decisions, and the products they are selling, and the sales they are landing, reflect that. Some airforces who aren't already flying C130j's might get a good deal on the A400M, but it won't ever be a universally popular aircraft (outside Europe) like the original c130, it's too costly for that, and recent order wins (which the A400M competed on) reflect that (Canada, Israel, Norway, India, etc.)

 

[swerve]

The cost overun is currently 1.4 billion, which will be funded out of the profits of Airbus. They are going to have to sell a lot of A400M's to make that money back. The first A400M won't even be operational to 2010. Most of the cost over-run is related to the engine cost - which I would consider a mistake in development. Would have been better off going the Embraer route - with a proven jet engine, for example..

I'm assuming that's in Euros, but it's still a lot less than the cost overruns on the C-17, allowing for inflation. That programme is generally considered to be a success, despite having sold very few more, 27 years after launch & 15 years after entering service, than the A400Ms launch order, & having only a few more export orders than the A400M has already. I think you're applying different standards, setting the bar higher for the A400M. The C-130J has so far booked only slightly more orders, 9 years after entering service.

As for whether the engine choice turns out to be a development mistake - well, it's caused delays, & has cost more than anticipated, but as I keep saying, by the standards of large military projects, it's not done badly at all. Probably better than most.

BTW, according to Airbus, "Turboprops provide the optimum combination of take-off and landing performance, cruise fuel efficiency and tactical mission performance such as manoeuvring on the ground, steep descents and air-dropping. A turboprop engine consumes 20% less fuel per mission relative to a turbofan, leading to lower operating weights, and hence lower acquisition and operating costs and optimised payload." The only part of that which the higher than anticipated development cost affects is the acquisition cost.

Embraer has chosen proven jets to keep down development cost, because Embraer can't afford to commit the sort of capital EADS has, & has far fewer guaranteed sales. Embraer has to allow for the possibility that the C390 will be a flop (I hope it isn't), selling only small small numbers. EADS started out with a number of guaranteed sales that Embraer can only dream of, & could therefore take greater developmental risks, making decisions on technical grounds that Embraer has to take on financial grounds. Also, EADS had to work to a customer requirement that I think effectively precluded jets, because of the performance demanded, & couldn't use an existing turboprop because there wasn't one that could provide the performance. Interesting thought - if the engine comes good, there could be scope for a direct C-130J competitor with two of them - a shortened A400M?

The A400M isn't a success - yet - and it'll be some time before we know if it is. But it's also too early to say it isn't.

 

[moahunter]

Embraer has to allow for the possibility that the C390 will be a flop (I hope it isn't), selling only small small numbers.

I hope it is not either - it is a very interesting looking aircraft, that I want to see built. It is faced with a level of financial discipline, that neither the c130j or A400M had to face, which may be a good thing in terms of building a simple, cost effective transport plane. Embraer have done very well with their commercial aircraft of late, so the results could be interesting.

Australia is in a lucky position in a way along with the RNZAF (the Herc refit went very well), they can wait a few years, and try to pick up a good deal from one of the three manufacturers. I'd be surprised if Australia does not go with the system it already has though. The RNZAF is more likely to go for the Embraer as it will replace the existing aircraft and then be the only system flown. The RNZAF doesn't really need LAV transport capability of the A400M, as it is hard to imagine a scenario where they won't have time to ship the vehicles, or be able to borrow that capability from Australia's C17's on the rare occasion it's needed. In saying that, they could be a customer for the A400M, but I would be surprised, as NZ normally takes the low cost opton.

 

[swerve]

Are you saying they sold it in US$ to European countries? That wouldn't have been smart - and even if they had, it would have been hedged.The exchange rate has nothing to do with it. I agree that the fixed contract wasn't smart though - the true cost of an A400M is a lot more than the price the Europeans governments are paying (note, cost does not always equal value).

No, the fixed cost contract was in Euros. The dollar price has gone up a lot because of the exchange rate movement, but that hasn't affected the costs of Airbus Military adversely. In fact, it has slightly reduced their costs in Euros, because some components & materials are paid for in dollars.

A 1.4 billion Euro overrun is a 7% overrun on the development & launch order. Yet again - how does that compare with other military programmes? So far, this is a much lower rate of cost overrun than on the C-17 - where the overrun on a fixed-price development & initial production (6 aircraft) contract for $6.6 bn was over $2bn. $18 bn had been spent by 1995, & another $4.5 bn was expected to have to be spent to complete production of the first 40 aircraft. The original estimate of $41.8 billion for 210 aircraft had risen to $45.4 bn for 120 aircraft by May 1994. The development cost overrun was matched by higher than predicted production & operating costs. That is far worse than the A400M has done so far.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf

 

[moahunter]

That is far worse than the A400M has done so far.

But, the c130j is flying today, it is fully operational, and has had on-going cash flow throughout the entire development process (being an enhancement to a mature and successful design). The A400M still has a long way to go. It is not securing new orders at the rate of the c130j (it is hardly securing orders at all), the market itself is speaking loud and clear as to which is the aircraft that is more suitable for most airforces (outside of the European airforces that placed their orders long ago). It likely wouldn't be smart for Australia to swim against the tide, especially given that is already has the infrastructure established for the c130j. It may be smart to wait a bit though - and look for a deal if one is out there.

 

[swerve]

I hope it is not either - it is a very interesting looking aircraft, that I want to see built. It is faced with a level of financial discipline, that neither the c130j or A400M had to face, which may be a good thing in terms of building a simple, cost effective transport plane. Embraer have done very well with their commercial aircraft of late, so the results could be interesting.

Australia is in a lucky position in a way along with the RNZAF (the Herc refit went very well), they can wait a few years, and try to pick up a good deal from one of the three manufacturers. I'd be surprised if Australia does not go with the system it already has though. The RNZAF is more likely to go for the Embraer as it will replace the existing aircraft and then be the only system flown. The RNZAF doesn't really need LAV transport capability of the A400M, as it is hard to imagine a scenario where they won't have time to ship the vehicles, or be able to borrow that capability from Australia's C17's on the rare occasion it's needed. In saying that, they could be a customer for the A400M, but I would be surprised, as NZ normally takes the low cost opton.

I entirely agree about the C390. I see that Embraer intend to build it plumbed as a tanker as standard (like the A400M), needing only a plug-in hose unit, & optional extra tanks.

Yes, I agree it makes more sense for Australia to stick with the transports it has (plus, of course, the C-295 or C-27J - I can't remember which one's been selected). The A400M might sometimes be better suited for a particular task than either the C-17 or C-130J, but IMO not enough to justify adding an extra type to a transport fleet the size of Australias. And if I was in charge in NZ, I'd be looking at the possibility of making cost savings by co-operating with Australia, which would make it sensible to buy the same kit. Maybe buy some excess C-130J capacity, to allow Oz to buy less there (borrowing NZ Hercs if needed) & maybe afford an extra C-17, which NZ gets a go at when it needs to shift big loads.

 

[Firehorse]

Some years ago there was talk about building civilian version C-17s, but nothing came out of it- too costly! How about cilvil firefighting/cargo versions of A-400M?
Interstingly, the C-130's Soviet counterpart AN-12 had a twin-engine version AN-8 and the passanger AN-10.
As for the A-380, there will be a streched/cargo variants that could do as well as C-5/17s in ops that don't involve paradrops or rough airstio landings.

I'm aware for the reasons Europeans started this A-400M program; both it and C-17 are in the class by themselves and can complement each other in the Australian context.

 

[moahunter]

So, what do people think? Will the A400M even ever fly?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,610732,00.html

The plug might be pulled on this black hole altogether.

http://defpro.com/daily/details/284/

It is basic finance theory that a sunk cost needs to be disregarded when deciding whether to continue. I don't see how this project can go on much longer burning through cash while missing key target after key target.

 

[METEORSWARM]

08/05/2009 By A. V. Suárez (Infodefensa.com) - Airbus Military, the result of the recent integration of the military transport division of EADS Airbus, already has a detailed plan for the first flight of the A400M. So said its president, Spanish Ureña Sunday in a meeting with the press sector facilities in Seville. Ureña, however, refused to give details of it because "it is an internal report of the account they have done, yes, the countries of the OCCAR (Organization for European armaments cooperation), customers of the future A400M .

Airbus Military organized this meeting to explain why the integration of Airbus MTAD "after everything that has been published in the press," espeto Ureña, and the reasons for the delay in the A400M program, which the company can face of 1,400 million euros fine.

The President of Airbus Military says it "must be integrated", meaning "a need" to concentrate all the direction and create synergies and avoid duplication: "This move is a step toward becoming the number one industry." This integration process will be completed in late 2009 or January 2010, "when we are at full capacity," the Spanish, "we must not lose sight that this is a complex process, it is seven, and the key is in people, in changing behavior. "
In this process of integration is sought civilian capabilities compatible with the A400M and the truth is that "we need more engineers in several areas."

A400M Delays

Ureña insisted Sunday that they were not there to apologize, but to explain why the delay of the program: "It should be noted that the A400M is a completely different experience in civilian aircraft from Airbus. The standards are different, it is new partners, new technology ... a very complex organization that creates great difficulties. "
Airbus Military is aware that customers are waiting, but now they can say that "we see some light at the end of the tunnel," said Ureña.

Such difficulties "were not in the top of the signatories of the contracts," the president continued, "we were too optimistic."

The main problem for the delay in the engine, "we are making a great effort to find the motor, these programs are very long and is not an excuse, it is not easy," continued the president, although "everything is resolved now everything is in process and much progress has been made. "
As for possible negotiations with customers, Ureña denied Sunday that is occurring renegotiating some contracts. Airbus Military is in continuous communication with the seven members of OCCAR and three months of the moratorium are engaged in regular meetings to explain how the program is, "I do not see the possibility of a cancellation, we have the best product , "said Ureña. However, alternative solutions are being sought to compensate for the expected end product.

Costs Extra

The president of Airbus estimates that by year-end may know exactly what extra costs and financial impact will result in the A400M program. "We are in 'cash' negative at the moment, but the strong showing, for example in Spain is capital," says Ureña. The need for more time brings additional costs, however, the president did not want to specify the amounts that the attendees are being limited to ensure that it was "very much".

This plan cost, which was started during the three-month moratorium will lead to "changes or updates to the contract" but not "renegotiation" as Ureña.

However, Airbus Military on the understanding of clients based on information and the full confidence that the A400M will not be "a military transport aircraft, but" the plane, therefore, "we have to duplicate efforts, with a massive investment, doubling the number of engineers "and is aware that" knowledge is always expect the biggest challenge. "



Airbus Military cuenta ya con un plan detallado para el primer vuelo del A400M - infodefensa.com - Información Defensa y Seguridad

Greetings

 

[moahunter]

Thanks for the translation - seems (?) to be ploughing on then. Between a rock and a hard place, for there are only two choices:

1. Cancel and pay penalties
2. Spend a small fortune re-designing the plane to reduce its weight, and improve its engines.

All the while... Boeing picks up more and more orders... to make matters even worse, the trend is towards heavier IED resistant vehicles (which plays more to the C17 solution).

Wiki has a nice summary of the technical problems (dates from January), and the huge impact they are having:

"The German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland has closely followed the A400M program and reported on 12 January 2009 that the aircraft is overweight by 12 tons and may not be able to achieve a critical performance requirement, the ability to airlift 32 tons. Sources told FTD that, currently, the aircraft can only lift 29 tons, which is insufficient to carry a modern armored infantry fighting vehicle.[9] The FTD report prompted the chief of the German Air Force to say, "That is a disastrous development," and could delay deliveries to the Luftwaffe until 2014.[10] The Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the Luftwaffe is delayed at least until 2017. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M

What a nightmare for Airbus (or at least, whoever at Airbus is in charge of this botch up).

 

[swerve]

Between a rock and a hard place, for there are only two choices:

1. Cancel and pay penalties
2. Spend a small fortune re-designing the plane to reduce its weight, and improve its engines..

The engines don't need improvement. They need certification of the FADEC software. This seems to have been an administrative problem more than a technical one: the FADEC was late, but engine tests are reported to be going very well, both on the ground & flight tests. The biggest problem is in traceability. Coding & documentation was not done to the standard required for the requirement (always specified, EPI managed to overlook when developing the FADEC) for civil certification. This is delaying the first flight, & thus the entire test programme. One presumes some rolling heads. Note that this is not press speculation. It has been admitted, on the record at a press briefing, by the head of EPI, the consortium developing the engine. EPI is therefore having to retrace the steps it took in developing the software. Expensive & time-consuming, but relatively low-risk & much quicker than developing the software first time round. Airbus representatives at the briefing where this was stated confirmed that the airframe was ready to fly last year. Aviation Week story.

The weight issue is the one which might affect performance, & where there is no certainty of correction within a reasonable time or cost. I'd like to know exactly how bad it is: I've seen 12 tons in the press, but I've never seen a figure from Airbus. Has anyone else?

The FADEC delays to the first flight should not cause equal delay to the programme, as the engines will be more mature (more ground testing, more testbed flights) than would have been the case on the original schedule, & by the time the FADEC is ready, Airbus will have two aircraft available for testing, instead of the one originally planned.