Why US Army doesn't want C-130J/Airbus A400M faces "'significant' challenges"

1) Perhaps the NDP, BQ, Liberals and David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen should read this.

Lockheed Martin has lost its bid to be reinstated in the competition to provide the U.S. Army and Air Force with a Joint Cargo Aircraft. The program could involve up to 100 aircraft worth $5 billion. At least some participants say the decision turned on an Army demand for GATM (Global Air Traffic Management) system capability on the first aircraft. The company's plan was to add it at a later date approved by the Air Force. Lockheed Martin pitched the only four-engine design--a version of its standard body C-130J. The other competitors offered twin-engine aircraft--the C-295 from Raytheon/ EADS and C-27J from L-3 Communications/Alenia North America/ Boeing. The Government Accountability Office upheld USAF's decision to eliminate the C-130J in the first downselect. Lockheed Martin continues to build its transport, but an order slowdown means it could face a line shutdown by 2009. Lockheed Martin officials said they had shown there was an advantage to the Army operating an aircraft already in USAF inventory, rather than introducing a new design. Army officials want a smaller aircraft that won't be dominated and controlled operationally by the Air Force [emphasis added]. Supporters of twin-engine designs say some studies show the C-130J can't meet some of the tactical scenarios for takeoffs from 2,000-ft. runways that are prevalent in operational hot spots. Lockheed Martin says its aircraft is the best performer in high-altitude/hot-temperature conditions.

2) Now I wonder if our politicians and reporters have read this.

Airbus will have to commit more engineering resources to the A400M military airlifter program to rein in "critical risk areas" and preserve its schedule, customers are concluding after EADS briefed them on the results of a study of the project's status.

The report suggests there are "significant" challenges to meeting first flight in March 2008 and other scheduled milestones. The risks are "systems design (in particular electrical harnesses), maturity of military mission systems, engine modifications, remaining work to be done on the final assembly line."

Although EADS says the program schedule is holding, a senior company official acknowledges an updated master plan is being developed and will be presented to customers. Under scrutiny is the start of final assembly in Seville, Spain. Airbus Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier says the goal is to ensure all elements are in place before the process starts, and to avoid A380-like problems that have led to excessive rework and program delays.

The electrical wiring harness issue on the A400M is different than for the A380, officials say. The A400M harnesses are less complex and the proper design tools are being used. However, a company official says the supply of some harnesses is running behind.

One military buyer says the depth of the review is appreciated by customers, and keeping the delivery schedule is positive. However, he says, there clearly is no more schedule margin left and EADS will have to enhance resources to meet contractual milestones.

Bregier says the aircraft will meet performance targets. That's critical, says the military representative. But he also points out that the first six aircraft, pre-production versions, will not meet those standards.

The engine program has long been recognized as a possible risk area. A modified Lockheed Martin C-130 is due to enter flight trials fitted with a single TP400 in the first quarter of next year.

A400M users are pressing Airbus Military to ensure reliability is high on delivery. They don't want to suffer years of growing pains [emphasis added], such as those the U.K. and Royal Australian Air Force underwent when fielding the C-130J [problems LM says are generally resolved].