Originally Posted by
Winnie
Could it be that the mission packages were never able to be implemented, and the massive overages on maintenance time vs. what was advertized...
Winnie, you make a good point. But defence forces shouldn't be reliant on "what was advertised", they should make sure that what was advertised becomes contractual conditions as well. That can include cost and time required for maintenance. I realise this makes a contract more difficult to negotiate but it prevents empty promises. Too many defence projects in Australia start with rose coloured glasses about the relationship with the prime contractor and then turn to custard probably with no robust contract to turn to.
Can you see a case for how Norwegians could also claim cost of an alternate replacement helicopter? I can't.