A400-M

Assuntos em discussão: Força Aérea Brasileira, forças aéreas estrangeiras e aviação militar.

Moderadores: Glauber Prestes, Conselho de Moderação

Mensagem
Autor
WalterGaudério
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 13539
Registrado em: Sáb Jun 18, 2005 10:26 pm
Agradeceram: 201 vezes

Re: A400-M

#151 Mensagem por WalterGaudério » Sáb Out 17, 2009 6:55 pm

Antonio Alvarenga escreveu:
Junker escreveu:R6bi dá US$830m cada A400M! :shock:
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/articl ... 2009-10-15

Outra versão da notícia.
Parece que o contrato de compra do A400 da África do Sul pode ser cancelado.
Isso abre as portas para o KC-390


R47bn arms deal scandal rocks shocked MPs
Christelle Terreblanche
October 15 2009 at 07:33AM

http://www.iol.co.za

In one of the most serious tests to President Jacob Zuma's cabinet yet, it will have to cancel a R47-billion freight aircraft transaction gone wrong within the next month, or pay the price of a potential arms deal scandal part II.
Armscor chief executive Sipho Thomo admitted to shocked MPs yesterday that the cost of acquiring eight A400M Airbus heavy-lift planes had rocketed from a steep R17bn in 2006 to a whopping "estimated" R47bn.
Parliament's committee on defence yesterday grilled Armscor and acting Secretary of Defence Tsepe Motumi about their annual reports.
The Department of Defence received its 10th consecutive qualified audit report from the auditor-general, who noted that the government could have blown R2.9bn in an irregular tendering process on the Airbus planes.
The soaring cost of the eight aircraft came to light as MPs questioned Thomo about the R2,9bn paid out of the secret Special Defence Account.
Armscor has acknowledged that there had been no tendering processes and that the decision to buy the aircraft was made by the cabinet, after which it requested the state arms acquisition company to handle the process.
Then-defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota announced the decision in 2005, and the deal was concluded the following year.
The aircraft is a new model that has yet to take to the skies.
It is a joint project between France's Airbus and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), with participation from British Aerospace (BAE), French armament electronics company Thales and South African aerospace companies Aerosud and Denel Saab Aerostructures.
EADS, Thales and BAE were beneficiaries of South Africa's Strategic Defence Procurement Package that has cost taxpayers at least R60bn.
Thomo told the committee yesterday that the government had withheld a further R1,1bn payment to the aircraft - in addition to the R2,9bn - after Airbus told Armscor last week about the price escalation and that the aircraft were four years behind schedule.
They are to be delivered in 2016, 10 years after the order.
Thomo said the cabinet had a one-month window period to cancel the order.
Armscor and the Defence Department delegation would not answer detailed questions about the fiasco, saying they needed to brief Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu.
"Some of the questions are sensitive and we are not at liberty to discuss (this) in an open forum," Thomo said, adding that the cabinet could terminate the contracts.
"Our concern is that we don't have time - that decision needs to be made by the end of October."
Committee chairman Nyami Booi (ANC) noted that the payments would have to come from the defence budget, which was only R32bn a year.
David Maynier (DA) wanted to know what the total cost of the acquisition would eventually be, as well as the cost to taxpayers if the cabinet decided to cancel the deal.
He called on the government to start terminating the procurement and to launch a "full and independent inquiry into the Airbus deal".
This article was originally published on page 1 of Pretoria News on October 15, 2009
Bem, não vou dar uma de urubu em cima da carniça e torcer para o A 400M fazer água, porque não precisa. [005] A coisa já desandou demais para esse projeto. Nem precisa torcer contra. :? :? :? :?

No entanto, queria que a RAS encomendasse o KC-390. Se para isso acontecer for preciso dar o pinote no projeto A 400M, me desculpem , mas... :twisted:




Só há 2 tipos de navios: os submarinos e os alvos...

Armam-se homens com as melhores armas.
Armam-se Submarinos com os melhores homens.


Os sábios PENSAM
Os Inteligentes COPIAM
Os Idiotas PLANTAM e os
Os Imbecis FINANCIAM...
Bender

Re: A400-M

#152 Mensagem por Bender » Sáb Out 17, 2009 10:20 pm

É seria bom,mas precisamos também comprar alguma coisa,pra equilibrar o comércio com os caras.

Daqui a pouco o Zuma reclama 8-]

Que poderia vir de bom,pras nossas Fas, lá da terra dos diamantes?

Sds.




Carlos Mathias

Re: A400-M

#153 Mensagem por Carlos Mathias » Sáb Out 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Artilharia?
Programas conjuntos eu acho bastante possível.




Bender

Re: A400-M

#154 Mensagem por Bender » Sáb Out 17, 2009 10:26 pm

Hummmmmmmm! Então precisamos equilibrar logo esse comércio 8-]

Sds.




Carlos Mathias

Re: A400-M

#155 Mensagem por Carlos Mathias » Sáb Out 17, 2009 10:27 pm

:wink: 8-]




WalterGaudério
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 13539
Registrado em: Sáb Jun 18, 2005 10:26 pm
Agradeceram: 201 vezes

Re: A400-M

#156 Mensagem por WalterGaudério » Dom Out 18, 2009 5:06 pm

Carlos Mathias escreveu::wink: 8-]
A Artilharia pesada deles, é boa definitivamente. O G7 com aquele peso de 3,3 ton é forçar demais a barra, mesmo com alcance de 32Km. G6 is the name of the game , umas 100 unidades e pode fechar a conta e que os M 114 só sejam vistos no Museu Conde de Linhares.




Só há 2 tipos de navios: os submarinos e os alvos...

Armam-se homens com as melhores armas.
Armam-se Submarinos com os melhores homens.


Os sábios PENSAM
Os Inteligentes COPIAM
Os Idiotas PLANTAM e os
Os Imbecis FINANCIAM...
Avatar do usuário
Glauber Prestes
Moderador
Moderador
Mensagens: 8397
Registrado em: Sex Abr 06, 2007 11:30 am
Agradeceram: 253 vezes

Re: A400-M

#157 Mensagem por Glauber Prestes » Dom Out 18, 2009 7:36 pm

Walterciclone escreveu:
Carlos Mathias escreveu::wink: 8-]
A Artilharia pesada deles, é boa definitivamente. O G7 com aquele peso de 3,3 ton é forçar demais a barra, mesmo com alcance de 32Km. G6 is the name of the game , umas 100 unidades e pode fechar a conta e que os M 114 só sejam vistos no Museu Conde de Linhares.
Dobra esse número, e coloca também os M108 e M109 no Linhares.




http://www.tireoide.org.br/tireoidite-de-hashimoto/
Cuidado com os sintomas.

Você é responsável pelo ambiente e a qualidade do fórum que participa. Faça sua parte.
Avatar do usuário
P44
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 55161
Registrado em: Ter Dez 07, 2004 6:34 am
Localização: O raio que vos parta
Agradeceram: 2404 vezes

Re: A400-M

#158 Mensagem por P44 » Seg Out 19, 2009 1:43 pm

Sisulu Must Open Up, Not Cover Up Airbus A400M Details


(Source: Democratic Alliance of South Africa; issued Oct. 16, 2009)

The Democratic Alliance believes that Minister of Defence and Military Veterans Lindiwe Sisulu is dead wrong: information about the dodgy Airbus A400M arms deal should be made public and investigated by a special multiparty ad hoc committee of Parliament.

Yesterday the minister claimed that information about the dodgy Airbus A400M arms deal should not have been made public because it was embarrassing and compromised diplomatic relations.

But it now emerges that the minister was briefed and informed about the Airbus A400M deal. The fact is that the minister was informed and has known about the risk posed by the Airbus A400M arms deal for months.

The minister appears to be reverting to her default position which is to cover up rather than to open up.

The key question is this: why, if the minister knew about the massive risk posed by the Airbus A400M arms deal, was the parliamentary portfolio committee on defence and military veterans not informed?

The latest revelations about the Airbus A400M arms deal raise even more questions including:

-- whose interests were really served with revelations today that deputy correctional services minister Hlengiwe Mkhize and former Major-General Jackie Sedibe are directors of Aerosud, a local company with an interest in the Airbus A400M arms deal?;
-- what is the real cost of the eight transport aircraft, given the Airbus claim that the R47 billion price tag is exaggerated?;
-- why was there a failure to provide for maintenance costs of the transport aircraft?; and
-- why in the first place was there no tender process for the acquisition of the eight Airbus A400M aircraft for the South African Air Force?

The public has a right to know not only how we got into the Airbus A400M mess, but also how we are going to dig ourselves out of the Airbus A400M mess.

That is why we need to urgently establish a multiparty ad hoc parliamentary committee to investigate the Airbus A400M arms deal.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the Oct. 17 edition of South Africa’s Independent On Line, Armscor's general manager of acquisitions Sipho Mkwanazi said the new R47bn price tag for South Africa’s eight A400Ms includes estimates for the full maintenance and life-cycle cost of the aircraft, spare parts, retention of skills and the SANDF having to pay for private freight charters for six years while it waits for delivery. These figures are contested by Airbus, but the company has not issued its own figures.) (ends)


Establish A Special Ad-Hoc Committee of Parliament to Investigate Airbus A400M Deal


(Source: Democratic Alliance of South Africa; issued Oct. 15, 2009)



The Democratic Alliance believes that a special ad hoc committee of Parliament must urgently be established to investigate the Airbus A400M arms deal.

Yesterday Sipho Thomo, Chief Executive Officer of Armscor, under pressure from the DA, revealed that the cost of procuring eight Airbus A400M heavy lift aircraft for the air force had increased from R17 billion in 2005 to R47 billion in 2009. The R30 billion cost overrun is itself nearly equivalent to the total defence force budget in the 2009/2010 financial year.

The contract for the acquisition of the eight aircraft was signed with Airbus Military (AMSL) on 28 April 2009 for delivery between 2010 and 2012. There were several departments - including the Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, Department of Transport and Department of Defence - that participated in putting together the Airbus A400M arms deal. The contract was part of a nine nation co-operative programme - including Britain, Germany and France - to produce the Airbus A400M. The Airbus A400M programme was soon in trouble and suffered from serious delays, causing the first flight of the aircraft to be delayed to late 2009.

The Airbus A400M arms deal must now not only be terminated, but it must also be investigated. The public have a right to know how it is that we are about to spend R47 billion on eight Airbus A400M aircraft.

Because so many departments were involved in the Airbus A400M arms deal, it will be impossible for the portfolio committee on defence and military veterans to by itself properly investigate this matter. The most effective way to investigate the Airbus A400M arms deal will therefore be to establish a multiparty ad hoc parliamentary committee so that all the departments - including the Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, Department of Transport and Department of Defence - can be called to account to Parliament.

I will therefore be proposing a motion at the next sitting of the National Assembly, calling on the House to adopt a resolution to establish a multiparty ad hoc parliamentary committee to investigate the Airbus A400M arms deal. (ends)


Terminate the Airbus A400M Deal Now


(Source: Democratic Alliance of South Africa; issued Oct. 14, 2009)



The Democratic Alliance believes that the programme to procure eight Airbus A400M strategic heavy lift aircraft for the South African Air Force should be terminated due to estimated cost overrun of R30 billion.

The Chief Executive Officer of Armscor, Sipho Thomo, revealed this morning during a portfolio committee on defence and military veterans meeting that the cost of the procurement of the eight aircraft had increased from an estimated R17 billion to R47 billion.

This means that unless the programme is terminated, the ordinary taxpayer will be forking our nearly R6 billion per aircraft.

The estimated cost overrun is:
--greater than the initial cost of the procurement of South Africa's strategic defence package; and
--nearly three times the total budget for the air force in the 2009/2010 financial year.

The original contract for the delivery of the aircraft, which was never put out to tender, was signed on 28 April 2005 for delivery over 2010 and 2012. The Airbus A400M was to be produced as part of a nine nation consortium cooperative programme which included South Africa.

We have already spent R2.9 billion on the Airbus A400M.

We have to get out while we can.

The DA therefore calls on the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, to:

--withhold the R1.1 billion pending payment to Airbus;
--begin negotiations to terminate the procurement of the aircraft; and then
-- launch a full and independent enquiry in the Airbus A400M deal. (ends)


Statement on COSATU's Attack on President Lekota in the Airbus Scandal


(Source: Congress of the People, COPE; issued Oct. 17, 2009)



The Congress of the People takes note of the opportunistic attack by COSATU on COPE President Lekota and Alec Erwin. The suggestion that these two individuals are responsible for the proposed transaction to purchase the Airbus transport aeroplanes, is just plain silly. Surely even the COSATU leadership can understand that the Cabinet assumes collective responsibility for such decisions.

COPE supports the call for a review of the proposed procurement decision, not because there is any evidence of wrongdoing, but because the reported price escalation needs to be explained. At this point our country may not be able to afford to purchase these aircraft, even if they are so desperately needed.

This review should also take into account the potential job losses locally if the contract is cancelled, as some of components for all these aircraft are manufactured locally.

While South Africans must remain vigilant and the officials in charge of executing these decisions held accountable, we should not jump to premature conclusions or make hasty decisions.

While this sort of populist response has become the order of the day in the ruling party and its alliance partners, citizens must make their minds up on the basis of facts. (ends)

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... frica.html




Triste sina ter nascido português 👎
Avatar do usuário
Rui Elias Maltez
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 13951
Registrado em: Ter Nov 16, 2004 1:38 pm
Localização: Sintra, Portugal
Agradeceram: 1 vez
Contato:

Re: A400-M

#159 Mensagem por Rui Elias Maltez » Qui Out 29, 2009 9:50 am

Paela parte que nos toca, a prioridade já assumida pela FAP, será o início do programa de modernização da frota de C-130H. Depois, mais uns 15 anos a seguir veremos.

E por mim, acho muito mais versátil no futuro uma frota de 8 C-130H que de 3 ou 4 A-400M, que são caros, e nem sequer são concorrentes directos dos C-17, mas sim parecem mais uns C-130 grandes.

Caros e sem garantias de nada. Acho que a Airbus se deveria dedicar ao que de melhor sabe fazer, que são aviões de passageiros comerciais e deixar este segmento de mercado para quem tem experiência.

Compreendo que o A-400M seja uma forma estratégica de maior autonomia europeia nesta área militar, mas sinceramente, para Portugal, haverá menor flexibilidade de meios se se optar por este vector.




Imagem
Avatar do usuário
FCarvalho
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 37498
Registrado em: Sex Mai 02, 2003 6:55 pm
Localização: Manaus
Agradeceram: 3218 vezes

Re: A400-M

#160 Mensagem por FCarvalho » Qui Out 29, 2009 11:27 am

A Europa está pagando o preço de sua arrogância no A400M, posto que há alguns anos atrás até a própria Alemanha já tinha largado, praticamente, mão deste projeto em favor do AN-70. Mas por uma questão de "independência e autonomia" os europeus quiseram fechar a conta em um projeto que a cada dia que passa está se tornando cada vez mais extemporânio e oneroso.

Nada a ver com as qualidades técnicas e capacidades do aparelho. Mas desde o começo, o projeto se mostrou de difícil gestão, a parte das onipresentes e constantes mudanças de especificações e contra-especificações dos vários parceiros.

Hoje para Portugal, a partir da OGMA, penso que seria mais prudente e economicamente viável fazer-se um investimento por meio de parcerias no projeto do KC-390. Em 6 anos estará voando e em serviço. Além da possibilidade de geração de emprego e renda e investimentos em novas tecnologias e competências na área de engenharia para os portugueses.

Talvez a França, menos por questões comerciais e mais por vislumbre das consequências do que poderá vir a não ser o A400M, envidou a possibilidade de aquisição dos KC-390. É como um ás na manga do governo e uma faca no pescoço da Airbus. Aqui e ali começamos a atrair parcerias e compradores de peso para o projeto. Em 10 anos, talvez não estejamos mais aqui discutindo se o A400M foi um bom negócio ou não, mas se a opção por enterrá-lo agora foi defineitivamente a mais acertada.

abraços




Carpe Diem
Avatar do usuário
soultrain
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 12154
Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Localização: Almada- Portugal

Re: A400-M

#161 Mensagem por soultrain » Qui Out 29, 2009 12:17 pm

O A-400M não foi arrogância, foi soberania militar e econômica. Porque o Brasil quer desenvolver o KC-390? Porque não compra o C-130J ou o AN-70, é arrogância?

[[]]'s





"O que se percebe hoje é que os idiotas perderam a modéstia. E nós temos de ter tolerância e compreensão também com os idiotas, que são exatamente aqueles que escrevem para o esquecimento" :!:


NJ
Avatar do usuário
FIGHTERCOM
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 4910
Registrado em: Sex Ago 04, 2006 6:51 pm
Agradeceram: 666 vezes

Re: A400-M

#162 Mensagem por FIGHTERCOM » Qui Out 29, 2009 12:33 pm

soultrain escreveu:O A-400M não foi arrogância, foi soberania militar e econômica. Porque o Brasil quer desenvolver o KC-390? Porque não compra o C-130J ou o AN-70, é arrogância?

[[]]'s
Caro Soultrain,

Desculpa perguntar, mas é porque conheço muito pouco do programa A-400M. Você mencionou a questão econômica e militar. Não seria mais pragmático ter investido numa parceria para produzir uma versão do AN-70? Considerando os atrasos do programa que não contribuem para essa soberania militar e a elevação do custo do programa que não contribuem para a questão econômica.


Desde já agradeço,

Wesley




"A medida que a complexidade aumenta, as declarações precisas perdem relevância e as declarações relevantes perdem precisão." Lofti Zadeh
Avatar do usuário
soultrain
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 12154
Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Localização: Almada- Portugal

Re: A400-M

#163 Mensagem por soultrain » Qui Out 29, 2009 12:48 pm

Wesley,

Porque o Brasil não fez o que sugere? A resposta é igual.

[[]]'s





"O que se percebe hoje é que os idiotas perderam a modéstia. E nós temos de ter tolerância e compreensão também com os idiotas, que são exatamente aqueles que escrevem para o esquecimento" :!:


NJ
Avatar do usuário
FIGHTERCOM
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 4910
Registrado em: Sex Ago 04, 2006 6:51 pm
Agradeceram: 666 vezes

Re: A400-M

#164 Mensagem por FIGHTERCOM » Qui Out 29, 2009 1:06 pm

soultrain escreveu:Wesley,

Porque o Brasil não fez o que sugere? A resposta é igual.

[[]]'s
Talvez por não existir um projeto novo em andamento, aproveitando um nicho de mercado pouco explorado. Afinal, KC-390 e A-400M estão em categorias diferentes.


Abraços,

Wesley




"A medida que a complexidade aumenta, as declarações precisas perdem relevância e as declarações relevantes perdem precisão." Lofti Zadeh
Avatar do usuário
soultrain
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 12154
Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Localização: Almada- Portugal

Re: A400-M

#165 Mensagem por soultrain » Qui Out 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Bom o A-400M também é de uma classe diferente do C-130J.

[[]]'s





"O que se percebe hoje é que os idiotas perderam a modéstia. E nós temos de ter tolerância e compreensão também com os idiotas, que são exatamente aqueles que escrevem para o esquecimento" :!:


NJ
Responder