Originally Posted by
Thomas coupling
CD nighthawk: I question not the integrity of this might battleship. A colleague of mine crashed one during trials one night, straight into the sea at 90kts and escaped without a bruise
What I will question is this: how can anyone, even the military, justify spending upwards of 40 million pounds on one airframe when there are several others out there that are atleast as capable as the Merlin in every respect, that cost less than a quarter of this?
Massively over redundant systems, prohibitive carbon fibre repair procedures, hugely inflated repair down times for every hour airborne and ask the Canuks about spares
People who even consider the 101 need their heads seeing to or are sublimely rich...
TC: maybe you should read this from cdnnighthawk and reflect on the apparent reason for the troubles you are so scathingly blaming on the airframe? My bold:
Originally Posted by
cdnnighthawk
Maybe this additional info might help to quell the dispute and further some understanding...
In 1998, Canada stupidly decided that it would outsource the In-Services-Support (ISS) for the Cormorant and also, that the OEM AgustaWestland (then-EHI) would be prohibited from bidding on the ISS contract (because it would have an advantage over other bidders).
To make a long story short, the lowest cost bidder was selected to provide the Cormorant ISS. This bidder (still in charge of Cormorant ISS btw) did not/has not committed a penny to the maintenance of an in-country inventory of Cormorant spares. Additionally, the ISS contractor selected by Canada was not the design authority (DA) for the 101 and, as anyone can imagine, had no authority or ability to make maintenance or support procedure changes without referring same back to the OEM for approval (a very time-consuming process).
The made-in-Canada Cormorant support calamity is why Canada has ever since (including for the Cyclone) demanded that the OEM (not a third party) be in charge of ISS.