Originally Posted by
DuckDodgers
The comment about boards isn't entirely true:
ATAC - part of the Textron Systems BU with Scott Stacy (GM ATAC) reporting to Lisa Atherton as Segment and BU lead who in turn reports to the Textron board. Lots of governance but equally lots of political capital, particularly in DC. Bid low on CAF CAS to secure market share and past performance.
Draken - owned by Blackstone within the Tac Opps business portfolio. Both Ford (CEO) and Tart (COO) report to the board of directors who have the power to remove. Again, have shown willingness to invest significant capital if the recent MLU acquisition is anything to go by.
Top Aces - owned by Clairvest, part of CEP IV whose board Bouchard (CEO) and Toussaint (COO) report too. Clairvest CEO (Ken Rotman) is chairman of the Board. This is how they raised the multiple-hatted $100MM capital to drawdown on for items such as Netz, A-4N modernisation etc.
Tactical Air Support - both Oaktree Capital Management and Meta Aerospace Capital have been involved in funding the acquisition and modernisation of their F-5AT effort. There is a board and all investments need to be approved by it. Shown a willingness to pursue a loss-lead strategy to gain market access, contrast Fallon versus Kingsley Field.
Leasing isn't really an option either unless governments are willing to set realistic budgets for a service provision; for instance a G2PE dry lease arrangement for something like the M-346FA is iro $20,000-$25,000 per hour. Add on gas, overheads, profit etc and you can add somewhat more to that figure.
The European market is certainly expanding and they have a common sense way forward especially regards to certification, air worthiness and mutual recognition thereof. The Middle East is descending into what can best be described as a pissing match between KSA and UAE. For sure, they've got the cash but are they actually willing to pursue the notion especially given the nonsense of Procor......
DD, whilst not strictly true, my point is that Draken (Blackstone) is not run under the traditional board construct and shareholders and they’re significantly more forward leaning when it comes to developing an agile platform solution - build it and they will come mantra is often used. Leasing is an option if BD get their act together. M-346 is well known for its expense so is perhaps not the best example. As I’ve said before, there are many older standard of Gripens sat around that the company couldn’t offload; leasing is a tasty proposition that could work for both parties. Equally, there are countries (Far East) that have developed training/light attack aircraft similar to M-346 that have been unable to sell to market.
I wouldn’t be so certain about the KSA and what’s happening there….