airbus 380 [Archive] - Page 3 - Off Camber Forums

TravelGal

12-14-06, 01:12 PM

E-Turbo News. Dec. 13, 2006

The Airbus super-jumbo, the A380, has been granted its air safety certification. The event is a landmark in the development of the world's largest airliner and was celebrated at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, France. Singapore Airlines will be the first to take delivery and put the A380 into service in October 2007.

The European plane maker, Airbus, is celebrating the air safety certification of its controversial super-jumbo, the A380. The airliner was given its clearance to enter commercial service at a ceremony at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, France.

The air safety certificate was granted by the European Aviation Safety Agency and the US Federal Aviation Administration and follows a stringent test flight program in which five of the aircraft logged 2,600 hours in flight.

The flight test campaign revealed that the aircraft is meeting the guaranteed performance both in terms of fuel burn and range. Because of its very low fuel burn, contributing to the lowest operating costs, it will produce very low emissions. It is also quieter than any other airliner, meeting the strict noise restrictions at London Heathrow.

“This double seal of approval represents a key milestone for the A380 program,” said Airbus President Louis Gallois. “It recognises the quality of the work performed by all those who have worked hard for many years on the development of this superb, new-technology leading aircraft.”

In addition to flight test success, further highlights have included airport compatibility trials with a total of 38 airports visited to date around the globe during which the ability to operate the A380 in the same way as existing large aircraft has been demonstrated. The A380 cabin also underwent a series of tests, including the successful evacuation test, performed at Airbus' Hamburg site.

Although not required for certification, but part of Airbus' commitment to smooth entry into service, Airbus undertook a series of four Early Long Flights in September 2006 where over 2000 Airbus employees took part to assess the cabin environment and systems in flight.

A major highlight of the exercise was the Johannesburg - Sydney trip over the South Pole, where the A380 demonstrated its capability to fly ultra long-range routes at maximum payload.

The technical route proving started with four trips which included visits to Singapore and Seoul in November, then to Hong Kong and Narita, Japan. On the third trip, the aircraft went to China stopping at Guangzhou, Beijing and Shanghai. The fourth and final journey included the round-the-world trip via both poles with stops in South Africa, Australia and Canada.

The certification caps six years of development and brings some relief to Airbus which has faced a crisis over delays in delivery to airline customers.

The A380 is a joint European venture with parts made in several European countries and shipped to Toulouse in the south of France for assembly.

Airbus has 149 confirmed orders but would need to sell at least 420 before it makes a profit. Costs have increased by demands from angry airlines who want compensation for the delivery delays, attributed to problems with the airliner’s wiring. Airbus said it was confident the problems would be solved within months and even weeks.

The A380 is the world’s largest passenger jet and can seat up to 800 passengers in some configurations. Most customer airlines are planning for 555 seats in a three-cabin layout. Singapore Airlines will be the first to fly the A380 in commercial service from October 2007.

chop456

12-14-06, 02:53 PM

A major highlight of the exercise was the Johannesburg - Sydney trip over the South Pole

Cool. It can fly upside-down.

Cam

12-14-06, 02:59 PM

Cool. It can fly upside-down.

Smart ***!

oddlycalm

12-14-06, 04:30 PM

need to sell at least 420 before it makes a profit. Good luck with that...:gomer:

oc

Andrew Longman

12-14-06, 04:37 PM

Good luck with that...:gomer:

oc

If history repeats itself, they governments of the countries involved will just pick up the tab for the development costs. What other choice can there be?

ferrarigod

12-19-06, 02:10 PM

In what could be another blow to the A380 program, Lufthansa has placed the first order of the Boeing 747-800 Intercontinental.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061206a_nr.html

20 for purchase, plus 20 options. Using some of the 787 technology, and helping to bring the 748i into today's technology.

Very nice. While Lufthansa has said they were interested, in the past, in filling the gap between the regular fleet and the A380, this also is read by some to be a precursor to a cancellation of the A380. The A380 is currently in almost complete production shutdown, and if the costs and such overrun much more with a 6th delay to the A380, Lufthansa could be getting ready for that.

I personally don't think the French and German Gov'ts will let it fail, but at some points the costs will so far outrun the benefits that even those governments proping them up have to take note.

It's been noted they are already in production losses, and probably won't be able to sell enough planes to make it profitable, but final figures remain to be seen. One more stoppage and cancellations/price breaks related to such delays could bury this project.

Interesting to say the least.

Ankf00

12-19-06, 02:25 PM

You might want to flip a couple of pages back on this thread, Berstein. :gomer:

ferrarigod

12-19-06, 02:33 PM

You might want to flip a couple of pages back on this thread, Berstein. :gomer:

yea, but the 20 options is new, i hadn't heard that before. those GEnx engines are hot.

and this ad is as well: (in the WSJ and some Rhineland newspapers)
http://www.airliners.net/uf/536886791/1166515163E7M9mN.jpg

Ankf00

12-19-06, 02:40 PM

yea, but the 20 options is new, i hadn't heard that before.

Try reading next time, it helps. :gomer:

http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showpost.php?p=179304&postcount=175

Wheel-Nut

12-19-06, 03:28 PM

yea, but the 20 options is new, i hadn't heard that before. those GEnx engines are hot.

and this ad is as well: (in the WSJ and some Rhineland newspapers)
http://www.airliners.net/uf/536886791/1166515163E7M9mN.jpg

I wonder if Boeing sent that to Airbus as a Christmas card?

TravelGal

01-14-07, 10:20 PM

New book:

Boeing versus Airbus: 'The Inside Story of the Greatest International Competition in Business'

From The Travel Insider: Although Newhouse still doesn't completely explain the question that is surely in all our minds - how can such large companies sometimes be so stupid - he does give a lot of fascinating information about their actions, making his book a compelling read on a fascinating subject.

The hardcover book measures 9 1/2" x 6 1/2", and is almost exactly one inch in thickness. It has 229 pages of text, plus 12 pages of notes and citations and a further 12 pages of index. Unfortunately there are no illustrations or photos or tables or other things to leaven the verbiage, although there is a photo of the author on the back flap of the dust jacket.

The book was published in January 2007, and is reasonably up to date as of that time, containing some material that was clearly written as recently as September of 2006.

Available on Amazon

Wheel-Nut

01-22-07, 10:58 AM

Maybe the model will be more profitable. . . . .

http://www.acteurope.de/html/body_peter_michel.html

ChampcarShark

01-22-07, 12:23 PM

Maybe the model will be more profitable. . . . .

http://www.acteurope.de/html/body_peter_michel.html

:cool: it is amazing what a little imagination put to work can do.

Andrew Longman

01-22-07, 12:35 PM

Maybe the model will be more profitable. . . . .

http://www.acteurope.de/html/body_peter_michel.html

Amazing stuff. Working scale jet engines!

As cool as that is I don't think I could enjoy flying it. I'd be too worried that a radio failure, gust of wind, dead battery, pilot error, or something would crash it.

I knew a guy who's wife bought him a $3000 RC B17 with about a 6' wingspan. Out of fear, he never flew it even though he was skilled at flying lesser planes.

Ankf00

01-22-07, 12:38 PM

UPS cancelled their order last week allowing Airbus to put the cargo variant on hold and concentrate all their energies on the passenger A380.

cameraman

01-22-07, 01:46 PM

Did UPS cancel the order or did Airbus cancel it for them?

Ankf00

01-22-07, 01:55 PM

reportedly it's UPS' doing, it guts the cargo program, but as noted above, Airbus can/will use this to their advantage since the passenger program is supposed to generate the most sales anyway

devilmaster

01-22-07, 02:11 PM

Amazing stuff. Working scale jet engines!

As cool as that is I don't think I could enjoy flying it. I'd be too worried that a radio failure, gust of wind, dead battery, pilot error, or something would crash it.

I knew a guy who's wife bought him a $3000 RC B17 with about a 6' wingspan. Out of fear, he never flew it even though he was skilled at flying lesser planes.

Didn't you hear about the group of guys who built a something like a 1/8 scale b52 with working jets? In on youtube somewhere of the first flight... and then later on the crash... :eek:

01-22-07, 02:18 PM

devilmaster

01-22-07, 02:35 PM

Always worth revisiting.

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=B52+RC+model&search=Search

Thx G. for googlin in.... I'm makin a late lunch... ;) :D

Andrew Longman

01-22-07, 02:37 PM

Didn't you hear about the group of guys who built a something like a 1/8 scale b52 with working jets? In on youtube somewhere of the first flight... and then later on the crash... :eek:

I remember that. Very similar to the crash of an actual B52 piloted by some hotdog. Apparently the B52 if very prone to stalling and control surfaces less effective if put into too much of a bank.

And yes, that's exactly the kind of thing that would take all the fun out it for me.

JoeBob

01-22-07, 02:46 PM

UPS hasn't cancelled YET... "We continue to talk to Airbus"

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/19/ap3345111.html

coolhand

01-22-07, 04:01 PM

Flying RC jets is more difficult then the real thing IMO.

dando

02-07-07, 10:27 PM

The Spruce Goose redux flies for the media hacks:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070207/D8N53EC00.html

The superjumbo may turn heads, but whether it can turn a profit remains to be seen. Analysts estimate the program's total cost has reached as much as 15 billion euros ($19.5 billion).

Harald Liberge of CM-CIC Securities is skeptical about the 420-plane break-even point previously projected by Airbus - particularly in light of the compensation talks still under way over much of the current A380 order book. Airbus Chief Operating Officer Mario Heinen declined to give a revised program cost or confirm the break-even figure.

The drain on resources has also set Airbus back in the more lucrative market for midsized jets, where Boeing's long-range, fuel-efficient 787 has been a runaway success. Airbus launched its response, the A350 XWB, just three months ago for 2013 entry into service - five years after its main rival.

The A380 may be an "engineer-driven" program that "will not make a penny for the next 10 years," Liberge said - but that does not mean it will not be a commercial success for decades after that.

"Like the 747, it should be operating for the next 40 years," Liberge said. "The demand is definitely there - this isn't another Concorde."

Kool Aid was obviously served for the flight. :gomer:

-Kevin

ferrarigod

02-08-07, 01:39 AM

Kool Aid was obviously served for the flight. :gomer:

-Kevin

Assuming it wasn't Delta, they goob's didn't have to pay for it either

:D

JoeBob

02-08-07, 10:11 AM

The other piece they leave out was that the same stuff was said/done to get people to swallow the size of the 747 when it was introduced. Lounges, Pianos, etc. Once customers were okay with the size, the the airlines looked at the economics. 5 rows of seats will produce more money than a lounge (or Duty Free shop) ever could.

Andrew Longman

02-08-07, 10:17 AM

"Like the 747, it should be operating for the next 40 years," Liberge said. "The demand is definitely there - this isn't another Concorde."

Or it is more likely to be another L1011

RichK

02-08-07, 11:57 AM

The A380 may be an "engineer-driven" program that "will not make a penny for the next 10 years," Liberge said - but that does not mean it will not be a commercial success for decades after that.

I guess it's finally time to subtly shift the blame to the engineers....

dando

02-21-07, 01:10 PM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2007-02-21T133939Z_01_L21700915_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITISH-AIRWAYS-BOEING.xml&src=rss&rpc=23

British Airways said on Wednesday it was choosing four Boeing 777 aircraft, with options for four more, ahead of Airbus A330s as it starts expanding its longhaul fleet.

:gomer:

-Kevin

Gnam

02-21-07, 02:27 PM

A bird in the hand is worth two in France.

ferrarigod

02-21-07, 02:33 PM

Not terribly surprising. but still another thorn in airbi's side. :D

oddlycalm

02-21-07, 02:58 PM

"We already have 43 of the 777 aircraft, and that was the tipping factor." Tipping factor? :gomer: Talk about British understatement. If I were operating 43 of one type the chances I would introduce 4 of different type would be zero considering the certifications, spares, and various other logistical issues....:shakehead

oc

chop456

02-23-07, 12:18 PM

United Parcel Service signed an agreement with Airbus that changes the delivery dates for UPS's order for the freighter version of Airbus' A380.

The revised agreement also provides for either company to cancel its order later this year.

Losing UPS would be a significant blow for Airbus as the Atlanta package-delivery company has the last remaining order for the A380 superjumbo freighter.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17296280

02-23-07, 01:45 PM

(UPS guy) "Dance, you Airbust monkeys, dance!"

(Errorbus monkeys) "Form the Conga line!"

Losing UPS would be a significant blow for Airbus as the Atlanta package-delivery company has the last remaining order for the A380 superjumbo freighter.

ferrarigod

02-26-07, 05:02 PM

It was bound to happen sooner or later:

Arabian Head Of State Orders An A 380

An unidentified Arabian head of state has ordered a privat Airbus 380...................and with this sets a new standard for private jets.

The plane will have space for 82 persons and the plane will cost 300 million Dollars and an adittional 150 million dollars for special interior. Plane interior designer Edése Doret has been given the job of working on the interior.

The cost of running the plane will be something around 25 000 Diollars pr. hour with a crew of 16.

It will include a 60 sq. meter owners suite. A living room, a jacuzzi, a dining room and offices on the top floor. All according to the designer in a " Arabian dessert design ", using curtains in an Arabian tent fashion and fiberoptic mosaic that will look like changing sand dunes.....................

In the lower deck, the staff of the sheik will have their offices, dining room and other facilities.

Article in Norwegian:

http://e24.no/eksklusiv/livsstil/article1660709.ece

chop456

02-28-07, 02:39 AM

TorontoWorker

02-28-07, 10:51 AM

Airbus to cut 5,000 company jobs, 5,000 contractor jobs (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2007-02-28T023816Z_01_L27489498_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIRBUS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-businessNews-3)

They are a decade behind Boeing... Right now they don't have the cash flow to support the A380 program and all it's fixes (not all are done or revealed to the media) AND get the A350XWB to market. Add in a US challenge to the government *direct* support that Airbus receives and it's going to be a rough bit of air to fly through. They are on what, their third CEO in a year and a half? They had two CEO's at the sametime at one point of which both were playing games behind each others back. Now you've got France vrs Germany - and I'm talking soccer here! Airbus (France) wants ALL *new* large assemblies while giving Germany the cast off almost done with it A320 builds. What's all the swapping of assembly plant opperations going to cast them in cash, lost production and lost orders to Boeing?

Right now the A320 is the only money maker and it needs an upgrade at that.

The A350XWB was a warmed over A330 - then when Airbus operators saw the plans they went ho hum and made noises about going to the 787. Ok, plan B Airbus said; we'll put *some* carbon in it. Udar-Hazey says - nope - still can't make enough cash using this thing - try again. So now they are on their 3rd remake instead of a clean slate design.

The ONLY reason the large Leasing companies are still making noises about ordering this aircraft when ever the heck it makes to the market place is that they NEED Airbus around as a way of keeping Boeings prices DOWN.

The A340 family has never made a good return on investment as it's seat revenue per mile. When you compare a A346 against a B744 it was underwhelming for what was billed as a more advanced design. The 400 model still has the better wing - something that Airbus has always lacked and something that Boeing still does right.

The Dreamliner (787) is kicking Airbus to the this A750XWB to the curb and the 777F is now about to bury the A380F. How soon will it be before the airlines figure out that a B748 at half the price may do the trick instead of an A380?

Wait until Boeing gets the US airforce tanker contract, (Again)! Rumor has it that they may come to the table with a kick a*sed proposal of a 777 based aircraft instead of the 767 based one now on the table. 200 777 tankers?! What's that gonna do to the unit price of a 777 for the airlines? Can you spell 707 boys and girls...;)

As Onex Corp people like to say; Yes, we ARE in Kansas!

As far as waiting for a return on the A380 investment... after 40 years??? Like who WAITS that long for a return on your investment? I mean, really? I know people that can't wait a month on the markets before the dump and run shakes start up!

oddlycalm

02-28-07, 09:11 PM

Good analysis TorontoWorker. I agree with your broad assessment of them being a decade behind. That's where they are strategically as well as on composite construction technique. It's a tight corner they've painted themselves into even without all the political overhead.

oc

coolhand

03-01-07, 02:12 AM

Too political of a company.

JoeBob

03-02-07, 12:22 PM

UPS has finally cancelled their order: http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/02/news/international/bc.ups.airbus.cancellation.reut/

03-03-07, 04:52 PM

UPS has finally cancelled their order: http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/02/news/international/bc.ups.airbus.cancellation.reut/

And, Bob's your uncle.

Too bad for the workers.

coolhand

03-04-07, 02:47 AM

Some people are trying to spin this as a good thing because they can focus on the airliner version now. However throughout the 90s I am sure all their presentations on the revenue had X billion in the Freighter version by 2010. Now if they continued with it they could only promise 2012. Now they suspended that project. It wont be for a long time the freighter comes out.

Now some unions want to protest over the job cuts :shakehead

The French government is thinking of putting $120 in for composite research. Real company there.

Airbus and the Big 3 autos, both beholden to the government for handouts.

TorontoWorker

03-05-07, 05:44 PM

The biggest downside for Airbus will be the loss of suppliers. Does anyone think that they will just sit around and go belly up? No - they will take a flight to Washington State and do a deal with Boeing to become a supplier and or partner in other Boeing projects.

Airbus will now be left with having to make a lot of it's own parts in house with the result that costs will go through the roof. Just who will Airbus sell all these plants to? I'm sure suppliers are not going to float loans just to do a deal to build the same parts but which have much higher built in costs. They won't have the same situation as Boeing faced a few years back with the Wichita operation. The Government of France will never allow the former Airbus sites to go non-union. No way - no how, unless you want burning cars in the street and country wide national strikes.

History has shown that when the going gets tough - the French aerospace industry closes ranks and screws their own EU partners. There are a lot of examples of the French saying one thing and going off to build their own aircraft after getting as much development money and technology as they can. The Rafale is a perfect example. Germany better watch their backs...

coolhand

03-06-07, 12:02 AM

TorontoWorker

03-07-07, 11:08 PM

Didn't France break of from the EF project because they wanted a carrier variant? So they started the Rafale which is still not fully deployed with all its promised capabilities :gomer: They wonder why SK and Singapore bought Strike Eagles

- France demanded airframe assy.
- France wanted changes in engine bay size that would have favored the M88 (Matra) and would have cost RR millions to adapt their engine to fit into.
- The UK, Germany and Spain were willing to design a naval ver but these costs would have to be charged back to the French Navy. Small partners like Spain quite rightly argued that it would be unfair for them to pay for changes that they could never use and fly an aircraft that was going to be 1/2 ton over the standard model.
- France wanted the nose design changed late in the selection meetings. It seems that a certain french radar company couldn't match the dia that the
the marconi unit.
- The final nail was the demand that most senior managers for the program be from Dasault.

The irony is that the french have built an aircraft a little bit like an F18 and a bit like an F16 but without the good parts of either and the bad parts of both if that makes sense.

Now the French have ended up building three models of this aircraft - The A, B and M, something they said they would never do and which has driven the total costs through the roof. They call their aircraft a multi roll - yet they designed THREE aircraft to do it!

Meanwhile the Typhoon makes sales to the Saudi's because the aircraft was designed with a single purpose (AIR/AIR) and as such does not become a jack of all trades master of none.

The french had access to the program development data pre 86 and used this to attempt to get a head start on the Euro fighter group - the goal was to sell their model to the same clients that the Euro fighter was targeting.

Even with this head start they still blew it and in the end even their engine was a failure as well. The first A model flew with a F404 installed!

Not to thread drift but I see the same cut throat moves being played out over the A380 and even with pressure from Blair, BAE system saw the writing on the wall a few years back and started the pull out process. Many in the UK recall the stupid pressure the Government of the day put upon the UK industry to sign deals that lead to the Concorde cluster F*** that led to two different production lines and double set of managers, prototypes etc.

Boeing should thank their lucky stars for French socialists!! Mind you, without the A380 and A350 XWB - Boeing would never have been pushed to build the 787 to where it is now design wise. Boeing might have tried to build an aircraft that the airlines wouldn't have bought such as the Sonic Crusier.

The only saving grace for the French aero industry is the rumor that the UK may bail on the F-35. In some complicated deal - the French who are cost sharing on the new British QE class CVF aircraft carriers (65K ton) have offered 150 M models at some low ball price if the brit's modify the design for standard catapults and dump the jump ramp design that was to be used with the F-35 STOL model.

The F-35 program is in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic anyway. The brits want all design data that current US laws will not allow transfer of and the US Airforce who never wanted the aircraft in the first place want to bale out and buy more F-22's. My bet is one of the 3 F-35 models never gets built and I would guess that it will be the VTOL model.

Hope this isn't boring too many people!

03-07-07, 11:53 PM

Hope this isn't boring too many people!
Um, no.

Thanks!:)

Anybody got counterpoints? That's always fun.

mapguy

03-08-07, 12:05 AM

Great post TW. But..

Mind you, without the A380 and A350 XWB - Boeing would never have been pushed to build the 787 to where it is now design wise.

You've got it kinda backwards. The original A350 (v1.0) was a result of the 787. Then there was v1.1 thru 7.0 and then the XWB. All of which have sold as well as Tupolev's..... :D

We all know that the Beluga was nothing more than a 'my penis is bigger than yours' deal. ;)

coolhand

03-08-07, 04:51 AM

- France demanded airframe assy.
- France wanted changes in engine bay size that would have favored the M88 (Matra) and would have cost RR millions to adapt their engine to fit into.
- The UK, Germany and Spain were willing to design a naval ver but these costs would have to be charged back to the French Navy. Small partners like Spain quite rightly argued that it would be unfair for them to pay for changes that they could never use and fly an aircraft that was going to be 1/2 ton over the standard model.
- France wanted the nose design changed late in the selection meetings. It seems that a certain french radar company couldn't match the dia that the
the marconi unit.
- The final nail was the demand that most senior managers for the program be from Dasault.

The irony is that the french have built an aircraft a little bit like an F18 and a bit like an F16 but without the good parts of either and the bad parts of both if that makes sense.

Now the French have ended up building three models of this aircraft - The A, B and M, something they said they would never do and which has driven the total costs through the roof. They call their aircraft a multi roll - yet they designed THREE aircraft to do it!

Meanwhile the Typhoon makes sales to the Saudi's because the aircraft was designed with a single purpose (AIR/AIR) and as such does not become a jack of all trades master of none.

The french had access to the program development data pre 86 and used this to attempt to get a head start on the Euro fighter group - the goal was to sell their model to the same clients that the Euro fighter was targeting.

Even with this head start they still blew it and in the end even their engine was a failure as well. The first A model flew with a F404 installed!

Not to thread drift but I see the same cut throat moves being played out over the A380 and even with pressure from Blair, BAE system saw the writing on the wall a few years back and started the pull out process. Many in the UK recall the stupid pressure the Government of the day put upon the UK industry to sign deals that lead to the Concorde cluster F*** that led to two different production lines and double set of managers, prototypes etc.

Boeing should thank their lucky stars for French socialists!! Mind you, without the A380 and A350 XWB - Boeing would never have been pushed to build the 787 to where it is now design wise. Boeing might have tried to build an aircraft that the airlines wouldn't have bought such as the Sonic Crusier.

The only saving grace for the French aero industry is the rumor that the UK may bail on the F-35. In some complicated deal - the French who are cost sharing on the new British QE class CVF aircraft carriers (65K ton) have offered 150 M models at some low ball price if the brit's modify the design for standard catapults and dump the jump ramp design that was to be used with the F-35 STOL model.

The F-35 program is in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic anyway. The brits want all design data that current US laws will not allow transfer of and the US Airforce who never wanted the aircraft in the first place want to bale out and buy more F-22's. My bet is one of the 3 F-35 models never gets built and I would guess that it will be the VTOL model.

Hope this isn't boring too many people!

Yeah, we could go on about the politics of it however...If that A380 project is just a EU superiority enterprise then it deserves to fail. A lot of the prospects for it making money have dropped.

I read a French naval Admiral said in exercises that the F-18C could out detect the Rafael in BVR./ We know have Super Hornets with AESA. A lot of individuals who are wrapped up in French flags talk about them having AESA on the F3 versions (neither exist) by two years and talk about passively tracking and guiding missiles with IRST. And how their integrated SPECRA better then any F-22 system.

I also heard that the French/Anglo carrier deal was on the rocks with the RNs funding getting slashed.

Do you think the F-35 could replace the F-117 and F-16s roles?

KLang

03-08-07, 07:44 AM

Anybody got counterpoints? That's always fun.

I thought there use to be somebody around here that liked to stick up for Airbus.

Wheel-Nut

03-08-07, 11:08 AM

They got laid off.

Ankf00

03-08-07, 12:40 PM

They got laid off.

:D

and yes, the F-35 will replace f-117's and f-16's, the f-117 is pretty much a flying brick anyway and was first deployed in '82, not too hard to improve on that.

and F-35 program is in no trouble on this side of the ocean, if the DoD was going to slash their order they would have done so during the Quadrennial Defense Review, which was the popular opinion at the time, yet they didn't. They've solved the weight problem on the STOVL C variant, A variant testing has been going quite well, which is why Lockheed stock was hitting $100 last month when it was just $40'ish 2 years ago. B variant is being developed, Navy has cut some funding for C variant, and that's USMC version is the least important of the 3 domestically. If the brits cut ties, that could kill the C variant for the USMC if the Navy doesn't want to fund it, but with the UK's involvement in the program, as well as British Aerospace's, that's unlikely.

KLang

03-08-07, 12:47 PM

They got laid off.

They quit defending back in Janurary of 2005. :) Boy this thread has been around a long time.

Gnam

03-08-07, 01:42 PM

My bet is one of the 3 F-35 models never gets built and I would guess that it will be the VTOL model.
I disagree. The Marines only non-negotiable requirement in an aircraft is a capablility to operate off an LHD Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ship so they have some Marine air cover at the pointy end of an advance. Scrapping the F-35 VTOL would leave the Marines with the aging Harrier. A fine aircraft, but not in the same league as the F-35. I don't see a major upgrade in air power bypassing the branch of the military that would have the most opportunity to use and kill with it.

Edit: Just to get the thread back on topic, the A380 is a niche airplane.

oddlycalm

03-08-07, 05:46 PM

They quit defending back in Janurary of 2005. :) Boy this thread has been around a long time. Yup, some gifts just keep on giving and the 380 is one of them....:D

oc

Ankf00

03-08-07, 05:52 PM

Yup, some gifts just keep on giving and the 380 is one of them....:D

oc

So you're saying the A380 is like the herp...

couldn't agree more!

coolhand

03-08-07, 06:11 PM

:D

and yes, the F-35 will replace f-117's and f-16's, the f-117 is pretty much a flying brick anyway and was first deployed in '82, not too hard to improve on that.

and F-35 program is in no trouble on this side of the ocean, if the DoD was going to slash their order they would have done so during the Quadrennial Defense Review, which was the popular opinion at the time, yet they didn't. They've solved the weight problem on the STOVL C variant, A variant testing has been going quite well, which is why Lockheed stock was hitting $100 last month when it was just $40'ish 2 years ago. B variant is being developed, Navy has cut some funding for C variant, and that's USMC version is the least important of the 3 domestically. If the brits cut ties, that could kill the C variant for the USMC if the Navy doesn't want to fund it, but with the UK's involvement in the program, as well as British Aerospace's, that's unlikely.

I thought it was the other way around. The C variant is for USN. B is for RN and USMC.

About our last discussion. The AESA in the F-35 may be newer but it is a smaller array than the F-22s. The F-22 will still have the best Phased Array radar for awhile.

These Aussies put a kick ass site together with serious analytical studies for what aircraft they should choose.
www.ausairpower.net
F-15 AESA
http://www.ausairpower.net/APG-63V2-1A.jpg

F-22
http://www.ausairpower.net/APG-77-1A.jpg

The next AESA to field will be the Northrop-Grumman AN/APG-77 radar on the USAF's F-22A. This 1,500 element AESA will remain the highest performing fighter radar in the market for the foreseeable future. Designed with a very low radar signature antenna, it will provide the F-22 with a greater detection and engagement range than any other fighter in the market. Current planning envisages that the -77 will transition from the current TR module design to a design common to the F-35 JSF radar, with the aim of cost reductions. Recent US disclosures suggest that this will happen around the middle of the decade, as an F-22A Block 5 configuration, with the AESA rework incorporating antenna features for undisclosed advanced ground attack modes. The AN/APG-77 radar is the first of new generation of radars which push the back end signal and data processing functions into the aircraft's central computers, rather than inside a dedicated radar processor box.

Ankf00

03-08-07, 06:35 PM

I thought it was the other way around. The C variant is for USN. B is for RN and USMC.

you're right, I had it backwards. B variants currently being worked on, Navy's cut some funding to slow acquisition.

as far as radar between F35 & F22, AN/APG-81 is a more advanced 2nd gen AESA unit and the TR modules are smaller and more advanced than the first gen AN/APG-77 in the original F22. The newer AN/APG-77(v)1 leverages the advancements in the AN/APG-81 for new F22 production units, and existing raptor wings are/will be retrofitted.

and the aussies will never be offered F22s for sale

Gnam

03-08-07, 07:22 PM

and the aussies will never be offered F22s for sale
Never say never.

http://www.mrtoys.com/f-22-raptor-jet-12-volt-ride-on-plane/pics/F22-Raptor-12-volt-rideo-on-plane.jpg

emjaya

03-08-07, 07:26 PM

and the aussies will never be offered F22s for sale

Yes, we know that.

Could you explain why?

Cam

03-08-07, 08:11 PM

Yes, we know that.

Could you explain why?

Don't want us bombing the crap outta the K1's? :p

coolhand

03-08-07, 10:03 PM

Yes, we know that.

Could you explain why?

It may have been written into the contract with congress or something. I think they have to decide.

But I don't think the F-22 is the best thing for Oz. The F-35 is designed for the multi-role job.

Ankf00

03-08-07, 10:47 PM

because the F-22 is the premiere weapons platform in the world without peer. you dont just give that away in the name of good will

TorontoWorker

03-08-07, 11:09 PM

/
because the F-22 is the premiere weapons platform in the world without peer. you dont just give that away in the name of good will

I think in 25 years our kids will say, "My Dad used to talk about people flying fighters - isn't that a scream - what were they thinking"?!

UAV's will take the fun out of everything soon! :flame:

coolhand

03-08-07, 11:25 PM

/

I think in 25 years our kids will say, "My Dad used to talk about people flying fighters - isn't that a scream - what were they thinking"?!

UAV's will take the fun out of everything soon! :flame:

Fun?
http://caffeine.arc.nasa.gov/hsi/images/uav_control.jpg

:tony:

emjaya

03-09-07, 08:23 AM

because the F-22 is the premiere weapons platform in the world without peer. you dont just give that away in the name of good will

We see it as more than good will.

Ankf00

03-09-07, 11:21 AM

I don't believe the US ever gave away F-15's during the cold war, would be difficult to see them giving away such an advanced weapons platform when nothing else comes close.

coolhand

03-09-07, 12:24 PM

I don't believe the US ever gave away F-15's during the cold war, would be difficult to see them giving away such an advanced weapons platform when nothing else comes close.

Israel got them pretty much off the bat. They shot down Syrians in the Early 80s

Ankf00

03-09-07, 01:29 PM

Israel gets everything though... We actually suspended them from the JSF program office a couple of years back because of their China dealings, and maybe because of the DC spying too, can't recall. They weren't too pleased. :laugh: There's a couple of different tiers of access, they wanted UK level partnership. Surprised they weren't granted such status.

back on track: when's the first passenger Beluga slated for delivery?

racermike

03-09-07, 02:34 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070309/ts_afp/franceaerospace_070309172850

Airbus flailing around like a fish out of water

oddlycalm

03-09-07, 02:59 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070309/ts_afp/franceaerospace_070309172850
Airbus flailing around like a fish out of water The flailing will soon subside followed by the desperate gasping for breath. I'd edit the following to read "not yet."

The figures reinforced warnings from Airbus chief executive Louis Gallois that problems were deep and that cutbacks were urgently needed, but he reassured on Friday that the jet maker was not driving EADS into a cash crisis.
oc

TorontoWorker

03-11-07, 02:43 AM

"Airbus has three weaknesses: We need to reduce our costs ... to create a network of partners around us, and integrate Airbus as a complete company, not as a partnership between four national companies," Gallois said after presenting the results on Friday.
Throw a $B or two into the fire boys - cause thats what it's going to cost.

On going ahead with the XWB

The A350 XWB is going to be financed predominantly from the company cash flows, with strong contribution from the Power8 programme and from risk sharing partners. The funding requirements going forward will be proactively managed in line with company policy to preserve a strong balance sheet. EADS expects to spread the development costs of the full XWB family over the years 2007 to 2014 with the bulk of spending occurring in 2010-2013.

What cashflow?! If you don't deliver aircraft - you don't get paid!
Take a look at the share price - 1/3 of their worth - gone.
http://iracs.isg.de/eads/2005/chart_en_2005.htm

Watch what happens when Daimler Chrysler 22.47%* stock holders in EADS decides it's had eneough and starts to sell ALL of their stock... Can we say $8 or $7 Euros by the end of 08 boys and girls.

*On February 9, 2007, DaimlerChrysler reached an agreement with a consortium of private and public-sector investors by which it will reduce its shareholding in EADS by 7.5%.
Drip, drip, drip... Now remember that the share sale does nothing for EADS - in fact it lowers the value of all other shares as the markets are not rewarding sellers right now.

The sad part is that this firm does make some fine products but poor management and a faulty dream of Government ownership (France) has led to the rest of the company being knocked back on it's heels such as the Eurocopter group who ARE doing quite well.

SteveH

03-11-07, 09:32 PM

sort of related
http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?id=10860&siteSection=1#

Boeing Set to Raise 787 Production
JAMES GUNSALUS
Bloomberg News

Boeing Co. is in talks for the manufacture of as many as 10 fuselages a month for its new 787 Dreamliner, more than the seven originally agreed with Alenia Aeronautica, a unit of Finmeccanica SpA, the Italian industrial giant.

Alenia is spending $720.2 million to build 14 percent of the Dreamliner's structure, including two body sections and the horizontal tail, Alenia CEO Giuseppe Giordo said Monday in an interview.

"We are now planning seven a month and also discussing the possibility of 10 a month," Giordo said. "If things continue as they are with 787 orders, we will have to start talking to Boeing about more."

Boeing spokeswoman Yvonne Leach declined to comment on 787 production plans, except to say that a decision on an increase would be made this summer.

The Dreamliner now has firm orders for 464 planes from 37 airlines, making it Boeing's most successful new airliner program.

Wing components and floor beams for the plane are being produced in Tulsa by Wichita-based Spirit AeroSystems Inc.

Finmeccanica CEO Pier Francesco Guarguaglini said two years ago that Boeing had asked the company to potentially double its production rate to 14 fuselages a month.

"Everything is feasible," Giordo said last week. "The issue is investment. Sometimes it's not a matter of technological feasibility; it's the investment and business case it takes to make it happen."

Boeing CEO James McNerney has been in talks with 787 suppliers for more than a year to find ways to increase production as demand for the Dreamliner ex ceeds initial plans. He is also investing an additional $1 billion to keep new- aircraft programs, including the 787, and their suppliers on schedule.

The 787 is still slated for delivery in May 2008, even as Boeing spends the additional money on parts makers that have fallen behind, McNerney said Feb. 6.

Boeing is sending its own engineers to suppliers producing the composite carbon-fiber wing and body parts, including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. and Alenia. The engineers are there to make sure the first parts come in when they're needed.

Giordo declined to give specific details on problems that put his company behind. He said Alenia's work on the aircraft components is now proceeding on schedule, with the first parts arriving in Charleston, S.C., from Italy before the end of this quarter.

"The program is going as expected," he said. "Nothing is easy in the beginning when you're talking about such a high-tech program."

Alenia and closely held Vought Aircraft Industries Inc. of Dallas are in a joint venture based in Charleston, where fuselage elements will be stuffed with parts, then delivered to Boeing's plant in Everett, Wash., for assembly. Boeing's goal is to put the plane together in three days.

The aircraft maker plans to deliver a total of 112 twin- engine 787s in 2008 and 2009. That is an increase from an earlier projection of 96. Any further boost in production would start in 2010.

Alenia will have 1,000 workers dedicated to the 787 by the end of the year, Giordo said.

The Tulsa World Business staff contributed to this report.

oddlycalm

03-11-07, 10:20 PM

Boeing's goal is to put the plane together in three days.
For anyone familiar with traditional commercial aircraft assembly this is the real shocker. Computer controlled laser soft tooling, pre-stuffed sections and computer modeling and design of the assembly process have completely altered the process and of course Airbus is a decade behind in this regard as well...

oc

Ankf00

03-11-07, 11:18 PM

CATIA pwnz.

I'm a PTC dweeb though :gomer:

coolhand

03-11-07, 11:26 PM

For anyone familiar with traditional commercial aircraft assembly this is the real shocker. Computer controlled laser soft tooling, pre-stuffed sections and computer modeling and design of the assembly process have completely altered the process and of course Airbus is a decade behind in this regard as well...

oc

Does the composite sections being made of larger pieces also save time? fewer parts.

TorontoWorker

03-12-07, 12:29 AM

Boeing's goal is to put the plane together in three days.

WOW! Even if they blow this by 100% and put each plane together in just under a week it's still hard to believe. The real cost savings are where you total up all your suppliers hours plus Boeings hours and compare this to your rival. You don't want to just shift the build time to your suppliers as the cost of the build is just downloaded and comes back to you on pricing. This just has to kill off the art of
riveting! Welding next... Get your glue and heat guns ready!

But at close to 500 aircraft before the first one flys - it would seem that everyone will be making money on this deal!

nrc

03-12-07, 12:42 AM

sort of related
http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?id=10860&siteSection=1#

A bit less pasting would be preferred.

oddlycalm

03-12-07, 03:04 PM

CATIA pwnz.

I'm a PTC dweeb though :gomer: I'll take your word for that. Probably more important than which flavor is that companies late to the game are nowhere.

oc

racermike

03-15-07, 08:28 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070315/bs_afp/franceeuropeaerospacecompanystructureairbuseads_07 0315063157

If Airbus is gonna drop 10k employees for financial reasons, doesnt striking not help your cause any?

Either I am too stupid to figure that out, or I missed that day of school talking about this.

I would think that many walking off the job for one day, would cause the inevitable pink slip to arrive even quicker.

coolhand

03-15-07, 09:10 PM

Well they are Unions.....

anyway,The French are sending 3 (YES THREE) Rafales to Afghanistan.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw031207p2.xml&headline=French%20Rafale%20Heading%20to%20Afghanis tan
They are sending 3 Rafales into a low threat combat zone with no Air to Air threat or serious Surface to Air Threat to provide Close Air Support to soldiers who are in non-combat roles. I don't see other NATO countries wanting them to provide CAS. The USAF and nations with f-16s have a monopoly on that.

So they are sending a plane that has been in development for 20 years that is not fully deployed with its promised capabilities. It is going there without:

a laser pod
functional radar targeting system
a gun system

Super Eternards and Mirage 2000Ds are providing the laser designation for the LGBs. Is this Vietnam when F4s had to do that? Why don't the M2000s and Eternards just drop the bombs? A flight of M2000s would do a better job, it is a Pub stunt.

It is just because they can go to customers now and say the Rafale is "combat proven" because their sales are down compared to the M2000 30 years ago. But if you look closely it is not even the most capable French Plane around.

No ASEA, No Laser pod, no Sales.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw031207p2.xml&headline=French%20Rafale%20Heading%20to%20Afghanis tan
Pictures of a Rafale with the M2000 baby sitting it.

SteveH

03-16-07, 02:44 PM

Getting desperate? (http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?id=10954&siteSection=3) :shakehead

Airbus' chief commercial officer and supersalesman said Monday he's hearing from suppliers that Boeing's 787 could be up to six months late. Though he'd prefer that didn't happen, he added.

"In this particular case, misery doesn't love company," said Leahy, "We wish them well, to get an airplane out the door on time."

Sound like a certain snowmobile salesman from Canada that I know. :gomer:

Gnam

03-16-07, 03:29 PM

They are sending 3 Rafales...to provide Close Air Support to soldiers who are in non-combat roles.
"Non. I said Chardonay, not Yak piss! Now, I call for ze Air Support to level zis place! Viva la France."

It is going there without:

a laser pod
functional radar targeting system
a gun system
Typical French, bringing a croissant to a gun fight.

TravelGal

03-16-07, 04:28 PM

Snippets from today's Travel Insider. Anyone know about this "Blended Wing Body" design???

Is Airbus becoming less European? The Qatari government has said it would like to buy up to 10% of Airbus' parent company, EADS, and the Russian bank VTB would like to increase its current 5% holding. In a thinly veiled bribe, Qatar Airways has disclosed it may buy 80 of the new Airbus A-350 plane; an order Airbus desperately needs as it tries to resurrect this new airplane. Even if Airbus keeps its current ownership structure intact, it is copying Boeing by increasingly farming out a lot of the actual plane building to countries outside of Europe.

'Blended Wing Body' design. Boeing has been avoiding development of such a plane. The technology promises about a 30% saving in fuel, and a 19% reduction in weight, meaning less production cost and much lower operational costs.

At last, it seems Boeing is slowly getting to this concept, with the possibility of a military version BWB appearing in about 2022, and a passenger plane in 2030. That is good, but why so long? The technology and aerodynamic issues are far from new - examples can be seen in the B-2 bomber as well as the earlier B-47 bomber and some flying wing designs dating back to the 1920s. Hurry up, Boeing!--

JoeBob

03-16-07, 04:56 PM

Example of Blended Wing Bodies:
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/bwb1.jpg

While on paper, the designs are great, there are a lot of practical problems. Airports aren't set up to handle them. Passengers are likely to be uneasy about something that looks so different (and has such a different seating layout, almost everyone is in a middle or aisle seat). It is unknown how you'd evacuate in an emergency. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Boeing did get a design when they acquired McDonnell Douglas. Read more here: http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/mdc/97-158.html

or here: http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/102/C12058/

TravelGal

03-16-07, 06:41 PM

Thanks JB. Funny that the second article mentions Stealth Bombers. That was my first thought. First time I saw a Stealth fighter on the ground at the Van Nuys Airshow with a a fighter pilot buddy of mine. He was convinced it could never fly. I used to think that about 747's. I can remember trying to avoid them years ago. LOL!

While it sounds good to save all that fuel, you are so right: how about 20 of these puppies side by side at LAX? I don't think so.

coolhand

03-16-07, 06:55 PM

BWB might get a kick start from the military who are interested in it as the next generation tanker.

TravelGal

03-17-07, 01:38 AM

Public Viewing Site for Historic Arrival of Airbus A380 at LAX Announced

Lotsa details (like how far you'll have to walk) at www.lawa.org

The aircraft is scheduled to touchdown at 9:30 a.m. PDT on Monday, March 19, 2007, on the northside of the airport and taxi to the Flight Path Learning Center/LAX Imperial Terminal on the southside of the airport for a by-invitation-only arrival ceremony.

oddlycalm

03-17-07, 04:48 PM

Even if Airbus keeps its current ownership structure intact, it is copying Boeing by increasingly farming out a lot of the actual plane building to countries outside of Europe. That's inevitable given the total cost of the airplanes those other countries are buying. I saw the beginning of this type of quid pro quo back in the early 80's. The fact that airbus is 25yrs late figuring this out is simply one more reason they are floundering.

When we lost a $35 million flexible manufacturing system (FMS) order to Japanese builder SNK back in 1983 a Boeing's VP told us privately that ours was the superior system however we hadn't purchased $2 billion worth of Boeing airplanes the previous year. He was apologetic because he knew it had cost us more than $250K (1982 dollars) to do the engineering just to quote that job. And it was probably no accident that we ended up selling them dozens of 11 axis tape laying machines over the next few years at $3-5 million each however.

Boeing, which had previously never bought a single Japanese machine tool, never even tried to use the SNK system because they knew the integration systems would never work and SNK was incapable of supporting it in the field regardless. They just shipped the individual machines off to various plants and counted it as a small price to pay for a very large piece of business.

The same thing is at work with the outsourcing of the major components. The reason they do that is because those countries are responsible for very large orders of Boeing airplanes. It's obvious that at the very least Boeing is paying a huge premium in transportation costs, and they try to put a good face on it by saying things complimentary to their suppliers, but in the end there is only one compelling reason to do it.

oc