This is the billion dollar question.

Speculation is rife that EADS is contemplating the possible cancellation of the A400M project

EADS made promises that they could successfully design and build a world class military airlifter taking into account they had very little experience in this specialised field.  They have successfully built commercial airliners but a military airlifter "truck" is a very different thing altogether.  In conjunction with this was the interference by the European Governments in the design by their insistance that a new engine was to be designed and used.  This meant they were responsible for an considerable increase in costs.  So both sides are at fault in developing this mess.

Therefore, to make the project more acceptable to EADS is for the same said polititions need to invest more money into the project.  It seems to me that there is no alternative for either EADS to complete the project or, for the European governments who signed the original agreements to finance the project to its "successful" conclusion. 

The bottom line neither EADS or the EU can afford to let this project fail, they've sent to much money on the project todate to enable them to cancel the project.  The project employs thousands of skilled people who in these economic times a company like EADS cannot afford to loose, they have buils two or three prototypes which are albeit a little overweight but which can be rectified and, the engine is now flying and it would appear some urgency is being applied to complete the 50hrs qualification program asap.

Apart from the proposed C-130XL or possibly the An-70 there is currently no competition to the A400M so, EADS and the Eeropean governments sort your act out quickly and get this "truck" flying before the masters of military airlfter design and construction i.e. Lockheed Martin get their competitor out of their CAD studios and into the air.

A4K 

 I agree about all the political interference , but wouldn't be so hard on Airbus about saying that they could design a good military transporter. By that logic, back in the '50s, Boeing would have left airliners to Douglas and Lockheed, the then masters of airliner design, and not bothered with the 707. Also there would be no Embraer RJs.

By the way, are there any videos of the TP400 flight testing around?

EADS have designed and will build what has the potential to be a very fine aircraft and a successful one once they've sorted out the reported problems i.e. weight.  After all Boeing has similar problems with its 787 with the added problem of poor quality assurance of out sourced parts.

Boeing build very fine commercial aircraft but I understand Boeing bought Douglas to give them the military airlifter i.e. C17 jet "truck" technology .  However, Lockheed is the master of US military airlifter design and manufacture and if they are given the smallest sniff of potential success with their proposed C130XL marketed as the logical successer of the C130 then EADS has a problem.  Also, both Embraer and Kawasaki are poised to enter the (albeit prepared runway only) mid sized military airborne "truck" which will put pressure on both Lockheed and EADS.

The polititions caused the problems and only they can sort it out and they must invest in this aircraft or forever there after Europe will "Buy America" with regard to military aircraft and that includes fighters, etc, etc, etc.  

EADS cannot afford to dither or they will lose the the lead in this potentionly significant market.

No I haven't found any videos of the TP400 flight testing on the net which surprises me a little.  Must be a awesome experience to have that much power in one engine.

A4K 

"... I understand Boeing bought Douglas to give them the military airlifter i.e. C17 jet "truck" technology ." OK, Right.

If Lockheed do get a chance I can see a repeat of the the way JSF is doing in Europe . Can't imagine the US air force buying anything else if C130XL does happen. Then all the European governments will also buy that on grounds of economies of scale. The side effect will be a further killing off of proper European aerospace capability and loss of jobs .. etc.

 Perhaps EADS need to gather the same kind of courage and vision that Boeing did when it committed itself to the 747. The situation seems similar - they have the right kind of product at the right time, it's just a massive intial investment, but there is only a small window of opportunity before the 'establisment' gets its own act together.

On the other hand, are they really very keen to enter this business, sort of as a planned addition to the KC30 type tankers and MRTTs, or were they pushed by the governments?

Shame about the TP400 videos, we live in hope .

"Must be a awesome experience to have that much power in one engine." - Not forgetting the Kuzhnetsovs on the AN70, AN22 (one of those visited our works, it was a sight and sound to behold)  and Bears .

..... Not forgetting the Kuzhnetsovs on the AN70, AN22 (one of those visited our works, it was a sight and sound to behold)  and Bears ......

Kuznetsov engines on the AN-70 ?????

http://www.ivchenko-progress.com/welcome.do?id=168

".... Kuznetsov engines on the AN-70 ?????"

Indeed, I humbly stand corrected Apologies to Aleksandr.

That AN70 installation does make an odd sound doesn't it?

The noise of propfans could be annoying if you lived near a airfield from which aircraft fitted with such propellor systems operate.  The noise factor was one of the problems the US engine manufacturers found out about during the flight trials of their propfans.  It will very interesting to hear the TP400 flying test bed as this will give an indication of the noise levels of the A400M when taking off at max weight, maybe thats why their are no videos.

I believe the contra rotating props used inconjunction with the mighty Kuznetsov engines could be heard by submerged submarines.

The European polititions (and EADS) have got to have the same courage to invest in the A400M as that the major US manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing and also SAAB with their Gripen (its not really european) have in their products or, the European countries will have no choice but follow the US and its "Buy America" policy .  Certainly the US will buy the C130XL (if it is produced), a Boeing produced tanker, and the US is unlikely to purchase any significant numbers an european aircraft no matter how good it is in the foreseeable future unless it is exceptional and the A400M could be that aircraft. 

They must for the sake of the future of the innovative european aircraft industry if they are to be a major player in the world military market or forever hold their peace if the US only supports its own to the detriment of its allies aircraft industries.  It's the swings and roundabout game but its needs courage to be a serious player.

A4K

 Perhaps Europe needs to sit down and put together a common procurement plan, all 27 members, and give its manufacturers a chance for significant production runs. Then export customers would benefit and be attracted by lower unit prices, which I suspect is playing a big part in the rush for the F35 in Europe.

 I wonder whether the TP400s at full chat will have a deep sound or something like on the AN70, given that these aren't contra-props. Perhaps being arranged in opposite handed pairs affects the noise the same way as if they were contra-props. I seem to remember somebody reporting that during ground runs at Marshalls the installation had a distinctive crackling sound.

Yes I suspect you're right with regard to the F35's popularity in Europe. 

After all the EU is basically an union of inderpendant states whilst the american states albeit with some degree of independance are unitied with common aims such as e.g. "Buy America" and, the rest off the world can follow suit if they want to do business with the Unitied States of America.  In the future I suspect the only country that has the willpower to develop the power to compete against the USA will be China

It certainly will be very interesting to hear the A400M with all 4 engines at max power for a max weight takeoff.  Maybe noise is another one of the problem areas as 44000 hp will move a lot of air.

Interestingly, I just found this.

It seems those props are meant to go round really slowly - perhaps they will make one of the blades a different colour so that, as somebody suggested on another post, the kids at airshows can try to follow it round .

I've only ever seen a 'dead' Belfast in a museum. Wonder what they sounded like (live ones)? 

The prop speed is quite slow compared to that of the C130 which is around 12 /1300 rpm, II think.  I believe the contra rotating props used with the Kunetzov engines run at 750 rpm.

I once saw a RAF Belfast and remember being impressed with its size and it having enough room for a mezzanine floor in its cargo hold.  Its load when I saw it was a SRN5 (I think) hovercraft so it was a very capable aircraft. 

Of interest is it was very nearly the same size as the A400M

Here is the only video I can find of a Short Belfast albeit in Heavylift colours and taking off empty I suspect.

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Short_Belfast-Airline_Heavylift_Cargo_Airlines_Aviation-Video-6115.html

I hope it works

 Thanks for that. Kind of majestic.

Clicking the link gives a 404 not found, but going to the site and searching for Belfast gets there.

"... it was very nearly the same size as the A400M." So if the RAF names the A400M the Belfast II the way the Americans called the C17 the Globemaster III, this time round it really will be Belfast. I understand that the originals nickname was Belslow .

Sorry about that.

Nothing wrong with Belfast 2, it would be kinda apt if it proves to be an improvement on the original.