Source for former and what has latter got to do with this? (Repair analysis?!?)
So PR puff pieces.
I have been involved in three Canadian procurements and they were all disastrous. Government would launch a programme, withdraw and then re-issue the requirement. Spend lots of money and then cancel. Or pick S92 for ASW work (with no track record of that capability), when they already had a Merlin variant in the fleet. Or make a down-select, only to have a change of Government, followed by an immediate change in direction.
NATO spec, and a US MILSPEC.
What NATO spec? (DEFSTANs are a UK MoD thing).
Actually, I said just get more Wildcat, Merlin and Chinook and so benefit from economies of scale on existing training and support pyramids and be able to scale deployments much easier. That probably isnt “visionary” enough….
Yeah, it's a CIVILIAN thing. Not military.
That’s a tad self publicising
but I think the answer isnt another type pyramid, its dont buy Merlin in the first place (footprint of a chinny, maintenance pain and a horrible downwash) and/or buy something more useful than a Wildcat. I think they are well and truly shagged out. Mk2 hasn’t been a great experience in many respects.
I'm not sure there's enough life left in the Pumas to delay until the US is buying V280s... And V280s are about half the capacity the UK wants. Pumas carry ~24 (almost a full platoon), so do Ospreys. That's what the US makes in that passenger load class.
Ah, a UK term.
Not sure where you’ve got 24 from but that is at least 50% greater than its pax capacity, let alone fully kitted pax.
This program is for a UK helicopter.
Because broadly they are the same in terms of category. I cannot imagine how horrible it’d be to be one of 24 people in an Osprey. It was bad enough an experience being one of half that.
<19 (usually 18)
Blackhawk - yes for places within sea-level, with reasonable load, and I "heard" some people love to overload them......
The Canadian military might differ with you... sort of.
You state your opinion with great confidence, but what you say is factually incorrect. I don't know how to wrap it up more politely.
That's unkind of you - everybody is trying to forget the disaster that is the Cyclone!The Canadian military might differ with you... sort of.
The H-92 Superhawk is a military version of the S-92 in the utility transport role, capable of carrying 22 troops. The H-92 can also be configured for specific missions, including search and rescue and executive transportation. The CH-148 Cyclone is a shipboard maritime helicopter variant developed for the Royal Canadian Air Force to support naval operations of the Royal Canadian Navy.
So you'd want a helicopter with better crashworthiness? With better run dry capability? Easier and quicker to get in and out of? You, my friend, want a 149!
Nope, you have it the wrong way round. The 149 is a from the wheels up a military bird and tbh in a different league from the very old though still viable BH family.
It doesn't doesn't seem that surprising given the inclusion of domestic social value etc. would seem to mean that they'd have to bid at likely* 10-20% lower cost** than AW149; and if you don't make any profit from that then whats the point in bidding? Its hardly a "must win" competition for them. Including this sort of criteria is a difficult line between international competition and protectionism.
Any military contract can choose the locally-made product even if it's up to 50% more expensive and not be a WTO violation.
Even the WTO thinks that maintaining defense industries in your country is acceptable, and you can pay almost 50% more for your-country products without it being ... grrr, my brain is coming up with the word "discriminatory" but that's not right.
The WTO may allow it, but the UK government isn't scoring the bids that way.
Not when the Chinese is directly involved in the development and production of it also......
I still expect this to get kicked down the road till the V280 production version is flying.
