• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"

Well, I would have agreed with you except that given that all the suppliers suddenly seem to make things possible on short order now - who knows what availability will be like then?
 
You're right...aircraft manufacturer's will promise you the moon, and sort it out later with production problems/delays, but they have to get the initial orders in so they can even start the production run. They won't produce it, if there are not enough initial orders.
 
Airbus says they have 192 aircraft on order now.  That should keep them going for a year or two anyway. 

By contrast the C130J and C17 may be out of production by that time.
 
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??
 
About - that results in about a 16 Billion Dollar revenue stream.  Maybe Armymatters can fill in the blanks here.
 
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.

 
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.

Nobody in the avaiation industry pays list price. For example, the price for a Boeing 747-400 is around $216 million dollars US. No one pays that price, period. Most pay at least 30% cheaper than list price or more. So if you see a price for an airplane quoted by the manufacturer, take it with a big grain of salt.
 
Quagmire said:
So your saying the C 17's should be cheaper.

I am saying they CAN be cheaper (the up front cost of the airplane itself), if the government is any good with negotiating.
 
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)

Thanks Duey that's very informative.
I always wonder about the human aspect of things...guess thats the Padre in me talking.
We so often focus on kit and forget that we have to get real live human beings to make this stuff work.

It's sounds like exciting times for the Air Force community if we get this stuff.

I notice thought there isn't much in the way for the Fast Air Community...what say you on that one?
 
A400M problems, from June 5 Aviation Week (text not online):
    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].

One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding.

And Augusta-Westland is pitching the Cormorant for the helicopter (I hadn't known that).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/32cbced2-ffb1-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html

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.

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
A400M problems, from June 5 Aviation Week (text not online):
Well the Airbus apologist should be here any second to excuse this, or explain how Aviation Week just doesn't get it either.....  ::)

Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages [contending]...that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders.
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"?  ???
 
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 problem is that paying lawyers to launch frivilous lawsuits often provides a good ROI considering the punitive damages that can often be obtained....

Think about it.  Even if you burn $500,000 in legal fees in an attempt to obtain $500 million reward, it's almost a lottery ticket.  If you leave even a tiny leg to stand on, someone with deep pockets can tie up a business entitity for years.

The system is truly broken....


M. 
 
One of the things that you can always rely on is the media mixing up the stories.  The following quote is a good example:

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
.


The reality is that the reporter has mixed up the A400M proposal for the airlift competition with the helicopter competition.  EADS represents Eurocopter, not Agusta-Westland - that company is a direct competitor to EADS.  If Richard Thompson was promoting a helicopter for the Chinook competition, it would have been either the Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 or the NH-90.  Once again, you can't believe anything you read, very little of what you hear, and only half of what you see.....

 
Looking to capabilities for a moment, I wany my airforce to be able to do the following things:

a.   fly me and my stuff around theatre

b.   deliver lethal and precise fires against bad guys in theatre

c.   fly me to theatre

When it comes to priorities, I'm having a hard time deciding between a and b.  A couple of B1s or B52s flying around up top can provide thing b, and maybe we can keep on relying on somebody else providing them.  Tough call.  It sucks having to always have to ask somebody else's mom for a ride to the soccer game, even if she is hot.  Any word on our Chinooks?

Regarding thing c, I have noticed that C17s regularly take off and land beside my tent.  This tells me that they exist and actually fly and operate.  It also tells me that they are operated by our allies.  
 
2B: I'll do a) for you with a 'Hook and the guys need Herc's to do that too, since I include Mirage > KAF as in-theatre...B-52's out of Diego Garcia on station for 18-24 hrs will take care of b) for ya! ;)

In Hoc, Fast Air has pretty well all they need to come in to the box now...not sure what's going on there...discussions with buds at Cool Pool or Bagtown indicate the boys are getting pissed off theiy're not being put in now...some smell rotten in Denmark on this one?  Ideas?  ???

Cheers,
Duey
 
C-17 annoucement coming friday in Quebec (obviously)

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1dfa2584-b96c-4981-b801-4c19f265ea58&k=78835

The Harper government will announce a multibillion-dollar purchase of large, American-built military transport planes on Friday in Quebec City, in part to dampen criticism that the province's large aerospace industry would be deprived of lucrative economic spinoffs.

The expected announcement comes amid reports that the federal government is in discussions with the Bush administration to obtain one of the U.S. military's C-17s, a move that would allow the Canadian Forces to take quick delivery of the first of the four planes instead of waiting years for the order to be processed.

The discussions between U.S. and Canadian officials mirror similar talks the Pentagon had with Australia earlier this year before that country committed to purchasing up to four of the American-built C-17s from Boeing in California.

The Pentagon arranged to deliver to Australia its first C-17 by this December as part of the purchase deal -- instead of the aircraft going to the U.S. air force. The same process could allow Canada to take delivery of its first C-17 within nine months of an order being announced.
 
Back
Top