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

[Scoobie Newbie]

You know the defene critics will gobble what A400 coy has to say and spew it out and spin it up.

 

[Armymatters]

Airbus has already pissed off its A380 customers by sliding deliveries at least six months, with potentially even greater delays on the horizon.  There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't happen with the A400M as well. 

One has to ask the question, "why would 190+ Airbus A400Ms already ordered not go to those nations that have already stepped up to Airbus' sales division? i.e. Wouldn't Canada be last on the delivery list in say, 2013/2014, after the other nations get their aircraft?"

Pleading and $1.39 will get you a large double-double...

There is evidence that the A380 delays are intentional. BAE is selling their stake in Airbus to EADS, and BAE has already blamed EADS for causing the delau to sink the value of Airbus so that it is worth less which will make it easier for EADS to buy the rest of Airbus.
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1014055.ece

In short, right now, if BAE sold off their share of Airbus to EADS, EADS has already saved 34%.

 

[vangemeren]

The article indicates that there are some differences in opinion between the MND and CDS, they were able to compromise this time, but will it become a proble later?

You know the defene critics will gobble what A400 coy has to say and spew it out and spin it up.

I am by no means an expert, but it doesn't require a long competition to figure out that Airbus cannot fill the order in the timeframe that the military wants. (or am I just a rambling idiot?)

 

[Good2Golf]

AM, nothing at all compells BAE to sell its 20% share to EADS.  If anything, THAT is a cover for major manufacturing problems on the A380...

 

[Armymatters]

AM, nothing at all compells BAE to sell its 20% share to EADS.  If anything, THAT is a cover for major manufacturing problems on the A380...

Surprisingly most of the articles regarding the delay have mentioned the possbility of cancelation of orders for the A380. However, it is not the clients bringing up that possibility, but Airbus itself. That gives a bit of wind into BAE's argument that Airbus is deliberatly selling itself short. BAE already said they wanted to sell their stake for a long time. If BAE knew of troubles ahead, then they wasted a lot of time in not exercising their put option earlier and starting the clock for the 3rd party arbitration. It is their fault for not trying to come up with an agreement with Airbus for so long. If you made up your mind to sell and you know bad news is on the horizon, then by all means, pull the trigger quickly and be done with it. A week before the announcement of delays, there was news that there was deliberate sabotage to some of the A380 production wiring. There is good evidence that they are both connected.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

OK here are my questions, and maybe some of you flyboys and recruiters know the answers

1. Up to 5 C17s, a whole bunch of Hercs and what......10 Chinooks. Do we have the aircrews to do this??
2. How long will it take us to train em?
3. What potential recruiting problems do we face?? I'm thinking it takes a long time to train a person from BOTC to wings to being Captain of a C17.
4. What about maintenance personnel?
5. Do we have to build new infrastructure at Trenton to take the C17?
6. Where would we base the Chinooks...(What's their number again CH something?)

I'm just thinking that we have a lot of people shortage probs...how are we going to overcome them when we have the shiny kit?

 

[Kirkhill]

First of all its good to see a move made, any move.

Interesting timing, coincident with the change of command and other possible procurement changes.  One thing that took my notice was the reference on CTV was not to Joint Support Ships but to new Oilers, and not 3 just 2.  Any Navy types pick up on that?

But off to the commercial/political for a bit:

Reasons why BAE would like to sell out high - and why EADS would like to have to buy them out low.

It depends how badly BAE wants/needs the cash to proceed with an acquisition programme, a programme that would just make BAE that much stronger a competitor to EADS and put it in a better position for the North American market.

Lynch believes that the key trigger is that BAE is close to an acquisition in the US market, where it is the USA's 7th-largest military supplier. That's part of the equation, and it is supported by BAE CEO Michael Turner's quote that: "We believe that now is the right time for us to divest our Airbus shareholding to allow us to concentrate on our core transatlantic defence and aerospace strategy." This certainly has been BAE's trend over the last couple of years - not necessarily away from Europe or at its expense, just dwarfing it in terms of the opportunities pursued.

...take BAE out of any potential line of fire in future protectionist disputes...

..the potential for growing conflict with the US market due to escalating concerns about the potential for technology transfers to hostile regimes via French and other European partners.

Another acquisition could also be in the offing, and names like L-3 Communications, DRS Inc., Honeywell, and others have been floated. Some analysts are debating whether BAE has a broad portfolio approach in mind, or intends to make one very major acquisition the centerpiece of its shift.

From Defense Industry Daily

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/04/reports-analysis-bae-in-talks-to-sell-its-20-stake-in-eads-airbus-updated/index.php

 

[KevinB]

OK here are my questions, and maybe some of you flyboys and recruiters know the answers

1. Up to 5 C17s, a whole bunch of Hercs and what......10 Chinooks. Do we have the aircrews to do this??
2. How long will it take us to train em?
3. What potential recruiting problems do we face?? I'm thinking it takes a long time to train a person from BOTC to wings to being Captain of a C17.
4. What about maintenance personnel?
5. Do we have to build new infrastructure at Trenton to take the C17?
6. Where would we base the Chinooks...(What's their number again CH something?)

I'm just thinking that we have a lot of people shortage probs...how are we going to overcome them when we have the shiny kit?

I am in no way one to be able to answer these questions -- I would suggest that Duey, Zoomie and others of the AirForce be best suited for it.
However I beleive that Teddy R has already pointed out that the reduction of the number of Herc airframes will free up a lot of pilots to fly the C17 and the new C130J's, and consequently also the ground support systems.  I doubt C17 training would take very long (IIRC we already have some pilots who are qualified due to USAF exchange time).  My guess is the USAF would be more than willing to help us out in that department (as would the Brits and Aussies) until we could gain the base to do it ourselves

Chinooks are CH-47 (or MH-47's) - 450Sqn used to be in Ottawa (Uplands) and I am unsure of the other hook sqn name or loc.
My guess is they would put some in Pet for CSOR/JTF-2 (maybe some direct in Ottawa as well)
However I am guess the large bulk would be sent into theatre...

 

[George Wallace]

Interesting timing, coincident with the change of command and other possible procurement changes.  One thing that took my notice was the reference on CTV was not to Joint Support Ships but to new Oilers, and not 3 just 2.  Any Navy types pick up on that?

There is a whole new thread for just that purpose......Keep the Navy stuff together, the Air Stuff together and the Land stuff together......

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45213/post-395994.html#msg395994  (Kirkhills post in that thread)

 

[Cloud Cover]

There may be some errors in that that list. The JSS program is for three ships minimum, not 2.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect another advantage of the C-17 over the A400 is that there are likely simulators and qualified instructors on the C-17 in existence, so as soon as the order is placed, pilots can be selected for flight training and be ready to pick up the aircraft as delivered. We could also send a few pilots and crews on exchange with the US to learn about the aircraft in actually operations. That is a big plus.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is a whole new thread for just that purpose......Keep the Navy stuff together, the Air Stuff together and the Land stuff together......

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45213/post-395994.html#msg395994  (Kirkhills post in that thread)

Roger that GW. 

 

[Good2Golf]

OK here are my questions, and maybe some of you flyboys and recruiters know the answers

1. Up to 5 C17s, a whole bunch of Hercs and what......10 Chinooks. Do we have the aircrews to do this??
2. How long will it take us to train em?
3. What potential recruiting problems do we face?? I'm thinking it takes a long time to train a person from BOTC to wings to being Captain of a C17.
4. What about maintenance personnel?
5. Do we have to build new infrastructure at Trenton to take the C17?
6. Where would we base the Chinooks...(What's their number again CH something?)

I'm just thinking that we have a lot of people shortage probs...how are we going to overcome them when we have the shiny kit?

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)

 

[KevinB]

p.s. I-6, 447Sqn was the West Chinook unit (also the 147 school)

Thanks

 

[Armymatters]

I suspect another advantage of the C-17 over the A400 is that there are likely simulators and qualified instructors on the C-17 in existence, so as soon as the order is placed, pilots can be selected for flight training and be ready to pick up the aircraft as delivered. We could also send a few pilots and crews on exchange with the US to learn about the aircraft in actually operations. That is a big plus.

Airbus tends to have a policy of maintaining cockpit commonality with all of their recent products. That means a pilot that flys a A320 can easily fly a A330, after the pilot is familiarised with the handling characteristics of both airplanes, as the cockpits in both are very similar. Also, due to the fly-by-wire nature of recent Airbus jets, they can be re-programmed if you will to behave like another Airbus jet. If we want temporary jets to train our pilots on for pilot familiarisation, I know a pair of A340's in Canada that are due to be removed from service sometime soon, and will be available for lease.

 

[Zoomie]

If we want temporary jets to train our pilots on for pilot familiarisation, I know a pair of A340's in Canada that are due to be removed from service sometime soon, and will be available for lease.

A military turbo-prop aircraft will most likely have nothing in common with a civilian registered high bypass turbo-fan airliner.  The cockpit commonalities will probably stop at the head-rests.

I guess the point that EADS is missing here is that Boeing has said that we could be flying a C-17 this time next year, can they say the same for their proposal?  Thanks for coming out EADS - we'll revisit your proposal when you actually have a flying plane.

 

[Armymatters]

A military turbo-prop aircraft will most likely have nothing in common with a civilian registered high bypass turbo-fan airliner.  The cockpit commonalities will probably stop at the head-rests.

I guess the point that EADS is missing here is that Boeing has said that we could be flying a C-17 this time next year, can they say the same for their proposal?  Thanks for coming out EADS - we'll revisit your proposal when you actually have a flying plane.

Very true. However, with the limited defence budget, it is perhaps a good idea to get the most capable airplane we can get for our dollar. Buying both C-17 strategic and A400M for tactical airlift will mean that they both will add a good deal of capability to the CF for our limited funds.

 

[GAP]

It's probably not realistic, but since the A400 is not likely to delivered until well after 2012, what is the chances of getting 3-4 C-17 and then a couple of A400 for delivery in 2014-15?

 

[Kirkhill]

It's probably not realistic, but since the A400 is not likely to delivered until well after 2012, what is the chances of getting 3-4 C-17 and then a couple of A400 for delivery in 2014-15?

That far down the road GAP,  why not just deal with it when we get there?  This current buy is apparently for 2-5 C17s (depending on source) and 12 Hercs.  As Zoomie has been saying there is still some life in the current Hs and also the Buffalos.  In the next 5 to 10 years we'll likely be looking at other competitions to replace them then we can take a look at the full range of C295/C27J/C130J/A400M all over again.

 

[GAP]

I agree, but don't you have order sometime around now to get "that" delivery date??