GAP said:I have no idea what an initial run cutoff might be...but 197 doesn't sound like a lot....well, maybe...they're what..$85M ea??
Kirkhill said:As seems to be universal these days yoman - it is difficult to figure out whether or not the numbers mentioned are aircraft prices or contract prices. Contracts often include a lot of stuff other than aircraft and ships. Stuff like, service contracts, spares, training etc.
Take any number seen in public with half a pound of salt.
Quagmire said:So your saying the C 17's should be cheaper.
Duey said:1. There may be some balancing of crews within the various communities, but if prioritized appropriately, it will work.
2. I'd be type rated on H47 after an 8-week course in Ft. Rucker, Alabama.
3. Recruiting challenges, yes...but opportunities also...come fly serious front-line kit, etc....a recruiters dream
4. A challenge. May require interesting support from industry to kick things off...others have done this for ops...will just take care to make work.
5. Likely.
6. CH147...totally up for grabs...first op machines will no doubt go to theatre like I-6 says.
Cheers,
Duey
p.s. I-6, 447Sqn was the West Chinook unit (also the 147 school)
Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.
The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...
First flight is also slipping [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.
Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...
The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].
Meanwhile, AgustaWestland, the helicopter group, is worried that Ottawa is set to give Boeing’s Chinook heavy-lift helicopters a head-start over Agusta’s Cormorant Mark II.
“We’re slightly concerned that we’re being frozen out of a competitive process that is open, fair and where the playing field would be level”, said Richard Thompson, senior vice-president at EADS’s military division.
Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages from the Canadian defence department relating to a big helicopter contract awarded to US-based Sikorsky in 2004. The European group contends that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders.
Well the Airbus apologist should be here any second to excuse this, or explain how Aviation Week just doesn't get it either..... :MarkOttawa said:A400M problems, from June 5 Aviation Week (text not online):
OK, now please forgive me here; I'm not a lawyer - - in fact, my parents were married.....but does the law state that contracts must be written so as to not exclude any manufacturer or his monkey from competition? Isn't that why you put the desired specifications out there?Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages [contending]...that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders.
Journeyman said:Well the Airbus apologist should be here any second to excuse this, or explain how Aviation Week just doesn't get it either..... :
OK, now please forgive me here; I'm not a lawyer - - in fact, my parents were married.....but does the law state that contracts must be written so as to not exclude any manufacturer or his monkey from competition? Isn't that why you put the desired specifications out there?
Your helicopter is not what we wanted....so you're suing us because our "wants" didn't meet your "product"? ???
The five-star hotel isn't quite ready yet. >Mortar guy said:Perhaps that's one reason why we can't get the CF-18s there yet?