'Jack up the horn and slide a new car under it'. It seems to me it would be cheaper in the long run to just buy new. It's like those guys who put $1000 fancy wheels on a 10 year old Honda Civic.
Because you can't buy new butvyou can upgrade old....by just saving the number plate and a screw or so. LAV UP, the Cormorant now, the twin otter will be the same etc etc.
www.thedrive.com
Often the Airframe is still in good shape and can be brought up to better then new status and makes it cheaper to convert then build a new aircraft. One reason why Twin Otters and Beavers have been overhauled and in such high demand buying a used airframe overhauling and upgrading is cheaper then buying a new similar aircraft.
Yes and no budgets aside money from here and money from there is often the same money, but overhauling a existing a shell is usually cheaper then building a new structure.
In most cases with DND and the government can not run a procurement project. So it is "upgrade" the current the system in that is "Ship of thesus" or your Grandfather's axe. Which major capital project for new equipment using the current system has gone right? I can't even name one. Trucks maybe. FWSAR...had to be rerun and doesn't even work yet. F-35 enough said. Yes the UOR's from the Harper years worked but they were not the normal system.
I know when we rebuilt Beaver Aircraft their airframe, wings, floats and engines were better them new and also came in significantly cheaper then what a new system would cost.
Which is fine, so long as the characteristics and capabilities of the original (or upgraded) platform are acceptable. Otherwise, you get a modern version of something that is still substandard.
But my point about the CH149 Lockheed said they could have deliveried new Blackhawks based on a downgraded CSAR version they are making cheaper than Leonardo's upgrade. If they had run an open competition their could have been different options. The inability of the government to run a procurement process leaves it to the "upgrade" option. They can no bid this as the IP is owned by the OEM. It's the whole reason for these upgrades because of the broken system.
Hopefully they do a proper job. If not it will be Canadianized and only partially done.
The HH60/ variant was not a fit for the requirement we wanted due to payload, range and rear ramp etc, also did not fit the requirement for our ship borne helos. It may have been a good choice but it also did not full fill all the requirements.
We don't know there was not a RFP or competitive process which is my whole point. Who knows maybe a Bell 515 or S92 could made the grade. The whole procurement process is broken. So the only thing working is "upgrade" the Ship of Theseus plan because that kind of works.
There is no need for a RFP or even competitve bid. No one else is set up to perform the mid life extension without massive investment.
Because theoretical advantages are what Canadians are all about.
To be fair we don't have the Techs to fix any more A/C nor the Pilots to fly them. Maybe the gov did some foreshadowing spend more(cough cough kickbacks) for fewer platforms we can staff.Because theoretical advantages are what Canadians are all about.
I mean why get 2:1 airframes on a 80% capability that could give 100% readiness, when you could get not enough airframes to even run 80% of the airframes reliably
And there it is.Bid Protest Docket: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (W58RGZ-21-R-0084)
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (W58RGZ-21-R-0084)www.gao.gov
Tick Tock.
www.thedrive.com
