Army Guy Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Posted February 8, 2012 The 20 odd C-27s they’re retiring would be a coup for FWSAR and to replace the Totters…….A capable aircraft, what was short listed by the air force for FWSAR, had on the cheap would be a great deal….That said, aside from maintenance contracts, little to no industrial offsets will ensure it never happens…….. correct me if i'm wrong but Maintenance contracts would have to be set up anyways would they not, i mean we have done that in the past with the Herc's B and H models, switched contractors, why would it not be the same process. and with the C-27J have similar componets it should not be a big problem, atleast not in my Army mind.. Industrial offsets could be put back on the table, on top of the 20 odd aircraft now in service there is still 18 to be manufactured, perhaps a new contract could be had with savings , i mean right now the US Airforce is going to cancell whats left of it...they will pay out the contract cancellation fees but really the manufacturing company might be willing to bend on the price to get rid of aircraft already in the assembly line or to keep their plant open... FWSAR project when i read it slao includes C-130 that are now providing that service as well, I'm almost postive that our H models have more hours on them than the US Airforce's would it also not be benifical to rangle a few of those as well. As for the A-10s I see a real opportunity, both in terms for the taxpayer, the military and the Government…..reduce the F-35 purchase by 10-15 aircraft (roughly a ¼), thus saving ~ several billion and purchase three dozen Warthogs and put them through (As was planned by the USAF) the SLEP done by Boeing, thus making them viable into the 2030s (Perhaps beyond?)….In exchange for industrial offsets from Boeing suppliers and subsidiaries in Canada Even with 80 F-18 flying the Army had real issues trying to get them for ground attack practice, lowering the number of available aircraft would only lessen that. The main goals of the Airforce is defending our airspace...not much time is spent on ground attack, unless you look at the recent missions they have done, but don't tell the airforce that ...but the 65 was the number they decided on to air space mangement...I think the A-10 concept is a great one, but should be above the 65 f-35, i like your number of 36 perfect for deploymwents...be even better if they made they Mud gunners in a Army Brigade, like the Tac Hel guys.... Seen plenty of A-10 strikes in Afghan they are devasting, just ask the Boys in 1 RCR how deadly they can be... 2 runs and a Combat Infantry Company of over 150 was reduced below 45 percent effective in just seconds...and that was in low light, early morning...with an older A-10... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Posted February 8, 2012 did not say that. But honestly, I don't think Canada can defeat any of the strong nations without help of US no matter Canada has military or not. But ignore this sentence if you really think it is non-sense. And our nation was not strong enough to fight off the Japanese in WWII either, and yet we still went to China to help them in their struggle...You remember the Japanese don't you... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Guest Derek L Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 correct me if i'm wrong but Maintenance contracts would have to be set up anyways would they not, i mean we have done that in the past with the Herc's B and H models, switched contractors, why would it not be the same process. and with the C-27J have similar componets it should not be a big problem, atleast not in my Army mind.. Industrial offsets could be put back on the table, on top of the 20 odd aircraft now in service there is still 18 to be manufactured, perhaps a new contract could be had with savings , i mean right now the US Airforce is going to cancell whats left of it...they will pay out the contract cancellation fees but really the manufacturing company might be willing to bend on the price to get rid of aircraft already in the assembly line or to keep their plant open... FWSAR project when i read it slao includes C-130 that are now providing that service as well, I'm almost postive that our H models have more hours on them than the US Airforce's would it also not be benifical to rangle a few of those as well. That’s kind of what I alluded too in my previous post, aside from the maintenance contracts, which would be done anyways, there isn’t that much else we have to “gain” in terms of offsets….I admittedly don’t know that much about the C-27, or the American purchases details in particular….Were they made in Italy? Would we be obligated to purchase the remaining ones on order? Would we really have a need dozens of light-medium transports? Aside from the ~20 to replace “H” Hercs and Buffs in the stated requirement of the FWSAR program, I’d think any additional airframes would be a solution looking for a problem. My perspective is that if we could obtain the stated requirement for less than the planned budget of ~3.5 billion for FWSAR, both the taxpayers and the Air Force would come off as winners…….From what I understand, and I’m not sure if the USAF C-27 are as such, one proposal of the Spartan would see it share the same avionics and engines as the “J” Herc. Now perhaps if the American aircraft aren’t configured as such, we could pay to have them upgraded and still find some savings… Even with 80 F-18 flying the Army had real issues trying to get them for ground attack practice, lowering the number of available aircraft would only lessen that. The main goals of the Airforce is defending our airspace...not much time is spent on ground attack, unless you look at the recent missions they have done, but don't tell the airforce that ...but the 65 was the number they decided on to air space mangement...I think the A-10 concept is a great one, but should be above the 65 f-35, i like your number of 36 perfect for deploymwents...be even better if they made they Mud gunners in a Army Brigade, like the Tac Hel guys....Seen plenty of A-10 strikes in Afghan they are devasting, just ask the Boys in 1 RCR how deadly they can be... 2 runs and a Combat Infantry Company of over 150 was reduced below 45 percent effective in just seconds...and that was in low light, early morning...with an older A-10... LOL I can understand your pain….My brother is with the Strats……..I’d think the last fighter we’d had with a somewhat dedicated CAS purpose was the CF-5 in the 80s……… With that said, again I’m looking at this from the perspective of a deal to be had……In this fiscal climate I just couldn’t see a purchase of 65 CF-35s and dozens of “CA-10s” without giving up something……Hence my reasoning of a slight reduction of CF-35 tails, which would translate into two slightly smaller gun squadrons of 12-15 on top of a attrition reserve of ~20+ F-35s…… I’d think putting “our “ A-10s through the already planned upgrade, then if required adding a “dirty” modification to allow for probe and drogue refuelling (similar to what the Israelis did with their Phantoms) would be a rather stark addition of capabilities for our us, all the well “saving the taxpayers dime”. In reality, the A-10 is relatively cheap to operate and maintain and I’m sure we could find numerous other roles for it outside it’s intended purpose……….Imagine in any conflict with Iran, A-10s being used in a anti-shipping & maritime interdiction role in the Gulf against Iranian speedboats…….Or even helping to contribute to domestic SAR with their long loiter time and inherent ability to fly near the ground…. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 ...In reality, the A-10 is relatively cheap to operate and maintain and I’m sure we could find numerous other roles for it outside it’s intended purpose…… The A-10 is not politically correct for Canada. It is a relentless killing machine....a modern Gatling gun with wings, updated with directed attack munitions. During the Gulf War, Iraqi units tried to surrender to A-10 pilots, which were too busy destroying many thousands of tanks, armour, artillery, and radar sites. The CA-10...I'll believe it when I see it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 The A-10 is not politically correct for Canada. It is a relentless killing machine....a modern Gatling gun with wings, updated with directed attack munitions. During the Gulf War, Iraqi units tried to surrender to A-10 pilots, which were too busy destroying many thousands of tanks, armour, artillery, and radar sites. The CA-10...I'll believe it when I see it. I think you are right. Not subtle enough for Canadians. The last really good ground attack aircraft we had was WWII's Typhoon. Relatively speaking. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest Derek L Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 The A-10 is not politically correct for Canada. It is a relentless killing machine....a modern Gatling gun with wings, updated with directed attack munitions. During the Gulf War, Iraqi units tried to surrender to A-10 pilots, which were too busy destroying many thousands of tanks, armour, artillery, and radar sites. The CA-10...I'll believe it when I see it. I’m not holding my breath either………..You forgot to mention that gun spews out DU 30mm........I can hear it now, PM Harper wants to use weapons of mass destruction to support the American war machine That said, what better aircraft for “preventing genocide” and ensuring “humanitarian aid” is delivered safely to those in need………..It’s all about how you sell it. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I’m not holding my breath either………..You forgot to mention that gun spews out DU 30mm........I can hear it now, PM Harper wants to use weapons of mass destruction to support the American war machine Oh sure, there's that too. The GAU-8 shoots about 60 rounds per second. I used to work at the arms plant where the ammo was made. We used the 30mm casings as pencil holders. That said, what better aircraft for “preventing genocide” and ensuring “humanitarian aid” is delivered safely to those in need………..It’s all about how you sell it. Initially, USAF pilots rejected the "Warthog" as slow, ugly, and unglamourous. Then they got to fly one in combat with total air superiority a given. Women pilots loved 'em because they didn't have to be fighter jocks to get combat experience. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Oh sure, there's that too. The GAU-8 shoots about 60 rounds per second. I used to work at the arms plant where the ammo was made. We used the 30mm casings as pencil holders. Initially, USAF pilots rejected the "Warthog" as slow, ugly, and unglamourous. Then they got to fly one in combat with total air superiority a given. Women pilots loved 'em because they didn't have to be fighter jocks to get combat experience. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Indeed, and they’re not as restrictive in terms of pilot height like most fighters……..I’m near 6’4” (but shrinking) and thirty years ago there was zero chance I’d have ever fit into a Voodoo, Lawn Dart or Hornet without a industrial shoe horn (Musketeers were bad enough)……But I remember a former Dallas Cowboys defensive lineman (Chad Hennings) flew A-10s during the first Gulf War, he was closer to 6’6” and 300 pounds!!! Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Why whats going to happen to us Wild Bill? And whos going to get us? When I last looked at a globe the US is the only country with the strategic lacation capability of doing anything to us. Oh maybe thats what you are talking about,if we don't continuesly bend half ass backwards to kiss their butt and help them on every campaign they will invade us? WWWTT Man, I wish I had your faith! Do you seriously expect that the way you see the world today is not only absolutely true but also the way it will be, forever? You realize that especially in modern times, if something does come along you get no time to build up for it! You get hit and it is over and done in a few weeks or less. Come as you are - no time to go buy some new duds! Plus what about all those "peacekeeping missions" on which we pride ourselves? We've been at the point for years now where our peacekeepers are often more poorly armed than the embattled peoples! As I said, I wish I had your faith! I also hope those of your persuasion are never in power. I have children and I would like them to have a long and safe life! If I am wrong, they can curse a small percentage of extra tax burden to pay for a military that isn't worthless. If you are wrong they might be dead! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Sa'adoni Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Normally the US just puts their stuff in storage or transfers it to National Guard Units. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Normally the US just puts their stuff in storage or transfers it to National Guard Units. The ANG and Reserves will also be cut.....most of the aircraft being cut are from ANG units....AMARG could hold them for years if they are properly stored under the pretence that they could find future use…… Quote
Tilter Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 Obviously you believe that the world is totally a safe place and that Canada will never need an effective military, or at least a military with effective materiel. Are you suggesting that unilateral disarmament makes sense? Do you expect to send Canadian troops out on UN peacekeeping missions flying economy class on commercial airlines? With their slingshots in the cargo hold? Most people disagree with you and don't see the sense of your argument. Thank the Heavens! he has a real case of Ostrich mentality. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) The 20 odd C-27s they’re retiring would be a coup for FWSAR and to replace the Totters…….A capable aircraft, what was short listed by the air force for FWSAR, had on the cheap would be a great deal….That said, aside from maintenance contracts, little to no industrial offsets will ensure it never happens…….. And nearly two years later: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/07/military-going-to-the-ends-of-the-earth-to-keep-search-and-rescue-airplanes-flying/ OTTAWA – The Canadian military has been going across the globe to keep its aging search-and-rescue airplanes flying, reiterating the desperate need for replacement aircraft following decades of delays and political squabbling. Top Defence Department officials were told in a secret briefing last year that the military had been forced to “purchase spare parts from around the world” to ensure the “continued airworthiness” of the Air Force’s 47-year-old Buffalo airplanes. Political squabbling……a common theme in Canadian defence procurement……..this of course is just getting stupid……..The highlights of the timeline for the FWSAR program: -Program begins under the Chrétien Liberals in the early 2000s -Paul Martin Liberals allocated funding in the Spring of 2004 ($1.3 billion for 15 aircraft, said figure is minus through-life support costs of course) -DND selects the Alenia C-27J Spartan and the Airbus C-295 as the two most viable candidates in Spring 2004 -Bombardier sticks their nose in with their Dash 8 in summer 2005 -Summer of 2006 the Tories put the delayed project on hold to concentrate on the mission in Afghanistan and the replacement of our even older Hercules fleet - Fall of 2006 Alan Williams states the project is delayed because DND tailored the competition to favour only the C-27J -Winter of 2007, Lockheed wants to enter their C-130J -Spring of 2007 DND states FWSAR program requires an audit -January of 2008 Viking Air offers “new build” Buffalos -Summer of 2008 the Canada First Defence Strategy call for 17 FWSAR aircraft by 2015, now with 20 years of direct support costs included with the new accounting method, program “expands” to $ 3 Billion -Dec of 2008 Viking Air proposes to rebuild the Buffalo portion of the FWSAR fleet -July of 2009, FWSAR program restarted -Jan of 2010 National Research Council looks at the FWSAR’s SOR -Dec of 2010 DND revises operating requirements to include the possibility of a mixed aircraft fleet -July of 2011 FWSAR letter of interest issued -Oct 2011 Boeing & Bell offer the V-22 Osprey -Feb 2012 PWGSC secretariat is established to consult with industry -March 2012 budgetary approval of $ 3.9 billion with 20 years support approved -November of 2012 FWSAR secretariat adds sensor package and mandatory rear ramp to requirements -August 2013 FWSAR secretariat releases request for proposals to industry -Dec of 2013 Letter of interest request issued - Spring of 2014 contract to announced What is so difficult for the purchase of less then 20 aircraft? NDP defence critic Jack Harris said National Defence had previous chances to upgrade the Buffalos and collect spare parts when the replacement project started running into problems nearly a decade ago, but refused to do so. No, DND had the opportunity to rebuild a portion of the FWSAR fleet. The military denied it rigged the process, but a National Research Council report published in March 2010 backed up the allegation and called for the requirements to be rewritten. The project was subsequently taken out of National Defence’s hands and given to the Department of Public Works, which has overseen a complete restart. Oh those devils in the SAR community, what with their tailored requirements of a rear ramp, a cabin that the crew can stand fully inside and fit everything from a rescue boat, ATVs and snowmobiles into (and parachute them out the ass-end) and is equipped with modern (infrared) sensors to aide in a search……oh and of course that the cabin is pressurized and the aircraft has enough range to operate in various different climates of Canada…….Those bastards!!! Now this brings me to another point: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-signs-1.4bn-contract-for-17-lockheed-martin-220873/ Canada has signed a $1.4 billion contract for 17 Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 tactical airlifters. Deliveries are to begin in the fourth quarter of 2010. Announcing finalisation of the contract, Public Works and Government Services Canada minister Michael Fortier said the procurement will meet Canada's "dire need" for new tactical airlifters. "The airlift requirements of the Canadian Forces is a top priority," said defence minister Peter Gordon MacKay. The C-130Js are the second of three new airlift procurements announced by Canada in 2006. Under the first procurement, for strategic transports, Boeing was awarded a $869 million contract in February 2007 for four C-17s. The first aircraft was delivered in August and the last will arrive this year. Two sole sourced contracts, both completed on time and on budget under the Harper Government……It’s amazing what can be accomplished when we tell DND that we want to do “x”, they say they need “y”, and the Government of Canada signs the cheque……If we can purchase new transport aircraft in only a few years......... http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/c130/c-130j-variants/hc-130j-coast-guard.html Just saying..... Edited January 8, 2014 by Derek L Quote
waldo Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 And nearly two years later: c'mon Mr. WhiteSpace... your post was a lil' hard to read it was so compacted! In any case, I thought this thread was about the "U.S. Airforce downsizing" - no? here, let me bring it somewhat back on track with a nice timely opinion piece that somewhat aligns with several of my recent F-35 related posts that raise registered concerns over fiscal realities and the positioning of a single source manufacturer; i.e., LockMart... and what that means to the industry and ultimately how it affects security: U.S. Military Aircraft Fly Toward A Waterfall Yet the past few months have seen stark harbingers of looming pain. In September, right after Boeing delivered the 223rd and final U.S. Air Force C-17, the company announced the line would close in 2015. A month later, South Korea rejected the Boeing F-15 for its F-X 3 competition, dooming the proposed Silent Eagle variant and probably killing the line after the last of Saudi Arabia's current order is delivered in 2018. In December, the Boeing F/A-18E/F lost the Brazilian FX-2 competition, one of several key international defeats. A pre-solicitation announcement for 36 additional Super Hornets in fiscal 2015, placed by the Navy at the FedBizOpps.gov website in October, was withdrawn several days later, probably under pressure from the Defense Department. The last Super Hornet is scheduled to be delivered in 2016, and Boeing said it must decide this March whether it will preserve the line with company funding. The problem is not confined to Boeing's legacy programs. Lockheed Martin, which delivered the last F-22 last year, says its F-16 backlog only takes production through mid 2017. Beechcraft's last T-6 is slated for delivery in 2016. Bell-Boeing's V-22 program will expire around 2020, unless funding is found for additional aircraft. While no other U.S. military rotorcraft lines are threatened, 2011-18 procurement is being cut in half. That leaves the U.S. with two secure, dedicated fixed-wing military production lines (and only one prime contractor): Lockheed Martin's F-35 and C-130J (see above). Boeing is building its KC-46 tanker and P-8 maritime patrol derivatives of commercial jetliners, but the P-8 is slated to wind down around 2020, too. There are few new programs in the pipeline. The Air Force's T-X trainer should generate an off-the-shelf jet production line, but not until the next decade. The Long Range Strike-Bomber is just starting development, and we are unlikely to see any production aircraft until 2025, at the earliest. There is not much planning behind this carnage. While the C-130J is one of the few secure lines, with healthy ongoing procurement for the Air Force, Special Operations Command, Marines and export customers, it only barely survived the ax. Just eight years ago, the Defense Department moved to end procurement, effectively killing the C-130J line. If this move had not been averted, there would be an aging fleet of 40-plus-year-old C-130s in constant demand but with no replacements in sight. Today, the C-17 line is closing just as the U.S. is pivoting its forces toward Asia. This means the country will need greater strategic mobility just as it is killing its only strategic airlifter, with no funding in sight for a replacement. The faction of the Navy that wants to continue Super Hornet procurement is also mindful of the risk of killing the old before the new F-35C has proven itself for carrier operations. Given the challenging top-line defense budget outlook, little can be done to save more than one or two of these programs, if any. But what is more important, the U.S. can change the way it manages aircraft programs. Today, the entire system is geared toward racing programs through at the fastest possible pace. The services are incentivized to spend money when budgets are good, and to focus on lower unit costs through greater production volume. Companies are motivated to bring in revenues and profits, lawmakers to bring jobs to their districts. These are understandable motivations, but they neglect the need to preserve industrial assets. The alternative is to tolerate slightly higher unit costs (and greater risk of being caught by a top-line budget down-cycle) to make programs last longer. Rather than procuring 48 planes per year for 10 years, why not 36 per year for 13 years? Why not use export orders to stretch out domestic buys, rather than as an opportunity to raise production rates? The Defense Department needs to stretch procurement at the expense of program economics. A belated move toward prioritizing industrial-base concerns in procurement will be welcome for the next generation of programs. But for this decade, the industry will see factory closures and thousands of layoffs, along with the loss of national defense assets. The real post-Cold-War day of reckoning for military aircraft is looming large. . Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) c'mon Mr. WhiteSpace... your post was a lil' hard to read it was so compacted! In any case, I thought this thread was about the "U.S. Airforce downsizing" - no? . Certainly and at the time, the potential for savings in several of our procurement programs…….in this case, at the time, the retirement of the new C-27J fleet procured by the USAF, which by happenstance, was/is the frontrunner in our FWSAR program…….Again, at the time, the potential for Canada to realize savings in procurement…..Of course it’s all for naught now: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/01/07/US-Coast-Guard-receiving-Alenia-Aermacchi-aircraft/UPI-41811389129377/ WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 (UPI) -- U.S. Coast Guard pilots will soon be flying the Alenia Aermacchi C-27J, an Italian transport plane, under a transfer from the U.S. Air Force. Alenia North America reported 14 of the twin turbo-engine aircraft will be transferred to the Coast Guard and will begin flight operations within six to 12 months. The Coast Guard will use the aircraft for search-and-rescue work, as well as illicit drug and illegal migrant interdiction missions. here, let me bring it somewhat back on track with a nice timely opinion piece that somewhat aligns with several of my recent F-35 related posts that raise registered concerns over fiscal realities and the positioning of a single source manufacturer; i.e., LockMart... and what that means to the industry and ultimately how it affects security: Excellent……an opinion piece from the vice president of the Teal Group, opining on how the United States Government needs additional aircraft programs, from additional producers……..Funny enough, the Teal Group’s cliental: http://tealgroup.com/index.php/about-teal-group-corporation I'm glad you're finally starting to understand how the game works!! Edited January 8, 2014 by Derek L Quote
waldo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Excellent……an opinion piece from the vice president of the Teal Group, opining on how the United States Government needs additional aircraft programs, from additional producers……..Funny enough, the Teal Group’s cliental: http://tealgroup.com/index.php/about-teal-group-corporation I'm glad you're finally starting to understand how the game works!! huh! His assessment on the current generation programs is somewhat matter of fact... particularly given U.S. defense budget constraints. You know, the fiscal reality you continue to ignore in your F-35 sugarplum dreams! In any case, I'm not sure how you can read an aspect of personal aspiration on the author's part - certainly not in any relative near-period of time... certainly not for another 10-15 years when next generation programs might deliver. obviously you won't touch his actual assessment; particularly that part about shifting volume production out within an extended timeframe... keeping the lines active over a protracted period of time. That's just crazy talk and has no place in your "it costs what it costs" world of never-ending funding! Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 huh! His assessment on the current generation programs is somewhat matter of fact... particularly given U.S. defense budget constraints. You know, the fiscal reality you continue to ignore in your F-35 sugarplum dreams! In any case, I'm not sure how you can read an aspect of personal aspiration on the author's part - certainly not in any relative near-period of time... certainly not for another 10-15 years when next generation programs might deliver. Next generation programs need to start today……….Look no further then past and current related programs and the timeframes associated with. obviously you won't touch his actual assessment; particularly that part about shifting volume production out within an extended timeframe... keeping the lines active over a protracted period of time. That's just crazy talk and has no place in your "it costs what it costs" world of never-ending funding! You quite obviously have missed one of my key points, spoken of in various related threads (Shipbuilding, F-35, helicopters, submarines etc), as one of the greatest faults with specific Canadian procurements……The boom and bust political approach taken by Canada as opposed to one of continual, gradual procurement. Quote
waldo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Next generation programs need to start today……….Look no further then past and current related programs and the timeframes associated with. when I say next gen delivery within 10-15 years... obviously, the start is..... "today". . You quite obviously have missed one of my key points, spoken of in various related threads (Shipbuilding, F-35, helicopters, submarines etc), as one of the greatest faults with specific Canadian procurements……The boom and bust political approach taken by Canada as opposed to one of continual, gradual procurement. again, in this case, you're not reading the article author's distinction being made - that of sacrificing more immediate volume sales within respective procurements (and the resulting unit cost hits), in order to ensure the longer viability of the respective program products. . Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 when I say next gen delivery within 10-15 years... obviously, the start is..... "today". . . Clearly....like Lockheed and Boeing are teaming up to develop the next generation of bomber and their main rival will be Northrop Grumman.....Or the coming 6th generation of fighters to replace the Super Hornet, Strike Eagle and Raptor etc.... again, in this case, you're not reading the article author's distinction being made - that of sacrificing more immediate volume sales within respective procurements (and the resulting unit cost hits), in order to ensure the longer viability of the respective program products. I fully understand what he’s saying…….His line of thinking would see the United States today and in the near term, procuring not only the F-35 and F-22, but also the YF-23 and X-32, in combination with legacy aircraft, all in small numbers being built by various manufacturers………That is not viable today, just as it wasn’t in the early 90s. And though one of his ideals is the protection of many manufacturers, such largess is what lead to the current climate or: 1.Rockwell International & McDonnell Douglas being taken over by Boeing 2. General Dynamics Aerospace & Martin Marietta being taken over by Lockheed 3. Grumman Aircraft being taken over by Northrop In all these cases, the companies devoured were niche producers of legacy (3-4th gen) aircraft and defence programs (ICBMs etc) that were solely propped up by the Cold War. Once the geopolitical climate changed in the early 90s and the defence based corporate welfare was no longer viable, these companies that only produced (then/now) obsolete programs were not situated to compete in the changing landscape. The three main survivors were focused on the future and in the case of Boeing, diversification in it’s commercial airline business……….As such, it should be no surprise that Lockheed & Boeing built the F-22, Northrop the B-2 stealth bomber, then Lockheed and Northrop the F-35. Despite “studies from RAND”, these are very real reasons as to why modern militaries have been down-selecting the numbers of aircraft types within their inventory……….Frankly a modern force can no longer afford the corporate welfare and diversification of multiple fleets performing the same function within their militaries…….. Look no further then the deck of a modern USN aircraft carrier…….today you’ll see no more then the three incarnations of the Hornet, the Hawkeye and one of the variants of the Seahawk…..25 years ago, around the time of the demise of these various companies, the very same aircraft carrier would/could have Tomcats, Hornets, Corsairs, Intruders (and intruder tankers), Vikings, Prowlers, Hawkeyes, Shadows, Seahawks, Sea Kings and Sea Knights aboard…. Now if the United States Navy no longer saw the utility of operating numerous types, coupled with the fiscal restraints in operating, developing, upgrading and replacing numerous types, why should modern militaries be forced into the same yoke today? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Don't worry folks, the U.S. military and coast guard only has about 15,000 fixed wing and another 6,000 rotary winged aircraft. Won't be running out anytime soon. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 ....Look no further then the deck of a modern USN aircraft carrier…….today you’ll see no more then the three incarnations of the Hornet, the Hawkeye and one of the variants of the Seahawk…..25 years ago, around the time of the demise of these various companies, the very same aircraft carrier would/could have Tomcats, Hornets, Corsairs, Intruders (and intruder tankers), Vikings, Prowlers, Hawkeyes, Shadows, Seahawks, Sea Kings and Sea Knights aboard…. Hey...don't disrespect the C-2R Greyhound. No CODs....no mail or fresh milk ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Hey...don't disrespect the C-2R Greyhound. No CODs....no mail or fresh milk ! For sure…..then and now. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Don't worry folks, the U.S. military and coast guard only has about 15,000 fixed wing and another 6,000 rotary winged aircraft. Won't be running out anytime soon. Well they might lose a few if they have to head back into Iraq now that it has become such a predictable failure. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Well they might lose a few if they have to head back into Iraq now that it has become such a predictable failure. That's OK.....Canada loses aircraft and capability without even deploying them.... due to old age. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 That's OK.....Canada loses aircraft and capability without even deploying them.... due to old age. Well I reckon that's better than losing them prosecuting illegal wars. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.