Airbus A400M program: deliberately yes. For 4 reasons (file)
(BRUSSELS2) The European project to build a new all-terrain military aircraft, Airbus A400M, has been delayed. Between 3 to 5 years. A delay confirmed by Louis Welsh, the CEO of EADS. And the loss for the company is already between 2 and 3 billion euros. However, should we shout haro on the sick patient? No ! This for four reasons.
First, in practice, what is a delay of 3 or 4 years for an aircraft that will last almost half a century and when no real alternative solution exists.
Secondly, at the operational level, the Airbus A400M gives real autonomy and capacity for action to the European armies to intervene on almost any terrain, far from Europe.
Third reason, the industrial and economic reality. The figure of 40 jobs – given by EADS – gives the measure of the challenge today in the midst of the economic crisis and the possibilities
export remain intact.
Finally, this project has technological spin-offs that will irrigate research for years and give Europe a real lead.
So, tighten the screws, renegotiate certain aspects of the contract… Yes! Abandon or question this program. No ! It would be a gross scientific and commercial error as well as an economic and strategic one. In short, a political error. Europe will bite its fingers for a long time. Long time…
(NGV)
First point: at the cost of breaking capacity in several European countries. The fleets are aging, cost more and more to maintain, their availability is reduced. And it is now not in 30 years.
Second: certainly, but the A400M is not the only aircraft capable of doing this. And it seems to me that there are alternatives. Europeans have been satisfied with C-130s for years, why not buy C-130Js? UK buys C-17s, production not finished yet, why not follow this example?
Third point, I don't see why the technological spin-offs would be so important. We cannot be self-sufficient everywhere. Choices have to be made.
As for the allusion to the crisis, I prefer to restrain myself. But remember the words of our Minister of Defense, the army is not responsible for regional planning.