Privatised Battlefield Support Helos
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't make any kind of sense financially. Any kind of lease will always be more expensive, unfortunately due to massive cost overuns in most of the fully committed cat A projects, there is no capital to buy. Hence also the FSTA farce with leasing tankers. Whatever noises people make about the shortage of support helicopters, the only way we will be able to buy some is if Gordon opens his wallet and pays for them from a different budget.
I imagine that if we lose a leased cab, we will compensate the owner based on an agreed value of the aircraft at the time the contract was due to expire (ie what he could have sold it on for when we gave it back).
I imagine that if we lose a leased cab, we will compensate the owner based on an agreed value of the aircraft at the time the contract was due to expire (ie what he could have sold it on for when we gave it back).
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southbound
Pray share your genius. 
What price would Boeing charge MoD for a G model?
And when would the ac be delivered?
Would we go to the front of their order book?
What price a Merlin Mk3?
What would be the impact of the capability deltas?
Again, what did the DPA do to mess things up?
What did they do to 'overcomplicate things'?
Do you suggest that having the safety of the ac independently assessed was an 'overcomplication'?
Submit your plan to the MoD. I'm sure that they'll bite yer arm off!
buy G-models off the shelf - WAY cheaper than Merlin.
What price would Boeing charge MoD for a G model?
And when would the ac be delivered?
Would we go to the front of their order book?
What price a Merlin Mk3?
What would be the impact of the capability deltas?
There was nothing wrong with the Mk3's until the UK tried to overcomplicate things - DPA messed that one up, not Boeing
What did they do to 'overcomplicate things'?
Do you suggest that having the safety of the ac independently assessed was an 'overcomplication'?
Submit your plan to the MoD. I'm sure that they'll bite yer arm off!
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol - do some Googling and then come back before you criticise. Just how big is the order book for Merlin? Boeing are inundated with orders right now, keeping the price to a minimum. Admittedly, that might impact delivery timescales, and oh of course we also have to keep British industry ticking along. Not getting into a fight about which is better, just IMO new Chinook are likely to be cheaper and provide greater flexibility than Merlin.
We do all get carried away with having a specific UK-capability - buying off the shelf and doing the bare minimum to integrate is so much cheaper. The Mk3 was over-specced and over-complicated, hence the absolutely essential (never suggested it wasn't) safety assessment has kept them grounded - DPA specced it and ordered it - whose fault do you suggest it is?
We do all get carried away with having a specific UK-capability - buying off the shelf and doing the bare minimum to integrate is so much cheaper. The Mk3 was over-specced and over-complicated, hence the absolutely essential (never suggested it wasn't) safety assessment has kept them grounded - DPA specced it and ordered it - whose fault do you suggest it is?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southbound
Fear not. I'm not criticising your opinion. However, timely delivery may be a rather large criteria, given current circumstances.
Unfortunately your opinion as to a Chinook being cheaper and having greater flexibility is insufficient grounds to commit several hundred million dollars of the treasury's hard earned dosh.
I'm affraid that these boards are a tad too full of people like yourself who "do some Googling" and become experts on the topic. I attempt to refrain if I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I also think you may find that the Mk3s were originally built to US-Mil Specs and that is where the problem started
Fear not. I'm not criticising your opinion. However, timely delivery may be a rather large criteria, given current circumstances.
Unfortunately your opinion as to a Chinook being cheaper and having greater flexibility is insufficient grounds to commit several hundred million dollars of the treasury's hard earned dosh.
I'm affraid that these boards are a tad too full of people like yourself who "do some Googling" and become experts on the topic. I attempt to refrain if I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I also think you may find that the Mk3s were originally built to US-Mil Specs and that is where the problem started
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol - it is always difficult not to give one's identity away by being too 'expert'! You continue refraining and I will carry on speculating like most others on here - that is half the fun!
Don't care what spec the Mk3s were built to, DPA should have checked that would be suitable for use in the UK first. The fact the aircraft is unusable in the UK is not Boeing's fault...
Dangerous without the facts I know, but risk it and share what you think would be the best solution for the UK's hard-pressed SH force.
Don't care what spec the Mk3s were built to, DPA should have checked that would be suitable for use in the UK first. The fact the aircraft is unusable in the UK is not Boeing's fault...
Dangerous without the facts I know, but risk it and share what you think would be the best solution for the UK's hard-pressed SH force.
Every time I’ve ever stepped into a helicopter I can’t say I’ve ever thought about who had legal ownership of the machine, but I do like to think that it offered some of the very latest standards in safety and performance not to mention somewhere to brew a cuppa.
I’m not suggesting that a lease is the perfect answer, but the beauty of a COMR/lease option for the Treasury must surly be that less money is required up-front - money we are told we do not have.
Over a long period leasing is not the solution, but the terms should offer the MoD an extension or get out clause after say 10-years and the latter would allow the military an opportunity to upgrade to another platform as needs change in say 2018, and not be stuck with a model for 30 or so years without any realistic hope of financing a replacement.
I suspect that manufacturers will be tripping over themselves to offer the MoD the very latest they have in shop, and even if the MoD were to elect to go for revamped machines - whether they be utilised in the sandpit or just lugging fuel bollocks around Salisbury Plain - this must be better than the status quo.
Wait for it laddy!!!
I’m not suggesting that a lease is the perfect answer, but the beauty of a COMR/lease option for the Treasury must surly be that less money is required up-front - money we are told we do not have.
Over a long period leasing is not the solution, but the terms should offer the MoD an extension or get out clause after say 10-years and the latter would allow the military an opportunity to upgrade to another platform as needs change in say 2018, and not be stuck with a model for 30 or so years without any realistic hope of financing a replacement.
I suspect that manufacturers will be tripping over themselves to offer the MoD the very latest they have in shop, and even if the MoD were to elect to go for revamped machines - whether they be utilised in the sandpit or just lugging fuel bollocks around Salisbury Plain - this must be better than the status quo.
Wait for it laddy!!!
Last edited by Hilife; 11th Aug 2006 at 17:43.
Rumour has it that the Puma fleet and the entire CHF will be replaced with the "Cougar 2" or what ever the technical name is. Have a look on the Eurocopter website, awesome bit of kit!
Got to be happy with that.............
Got to be happy with that.............
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Originally Posted by South Bound
Boeing are inundated with orders right now, keeping the price to a minimum.
Ever hear of supply and demand driven pricing?
Companies will keep putting prices up when demand is high to make hay whilst the weather is fine. If they rise too high and it puts customers off or if they have competition from another manufacturer they drop their prices. With Boeing's order books for Chinook's plump and no-one offering a serious alternative I can't see us getting a few cheap in quick time.
Yes there is a point when if orders drop below a minimum prices have to rise to off-set loss of profits but I don't think Boeing will have to worry about that from the Chinook line for a while.
Stick to talking bollocks about things you know nothing about Southbound, oh you are.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol - another well-considered response.
Not interested in a fight, just funny how 'the corner-stone of capitalism' seems to suggest exactly the opposite based on my experience (but clearly I know nothing and shall keep talking bollox). More orders=more bargaining power with sub-contractors=bigger discount, pushing price down. Works for the civil airline industry, works for Boeing - see C17...
As I said earlier, clearly there will be an issue with timelines, and that will come down to when someone makes a decision, but in my completely naive experience it is far easier to add in an extra shift, speed up deliveries and hence increase output to support what would be a comparatively small order than it would be to start or significantly increase production on a small line.
Getting back into my uninformed box now, prostrating myself at the feet of those of you with the commercial knowledge you so clearly have....
Not interested in a fight, just funny how 'the corner-stone of capitalism' seems to suggest exactly the opposite based on my experience (but clearly I know nothing and shall keep talking bollox). More orders=more bargaining power with sub-contractors=bigger discount, pushing price down. Works for the civil airline industry, works for Boeing - see C17...
As I said earlier, clearly there will be an issue with timelines, and that will come down to when someone makes a decision, but in my completely naive experience it is far easier to add in an extra shift, speed up deliveries and hence increase output to support what would be a comparatively small order than it would be to start or significantly increase production on a small line.
Getting back into my uninformed box now, prostrating myself at the feet of those of you with the commercial knowledge you so clearly have....
Originally Posted by Could be the last?
Rumour has it that the Puma fleet and the entire CHF will be replaced with the "Cougar 2" or what ever the technical name is. Have a look on the Eurocopter website, awesome bit of kit!
Got to be happy with that.............
Got to be happy with that.............
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imaginary scenario but what if Gordon Brown shocked us all by saying that he's just bought 20 Merlin helicopters (just for the sake of argument) and they'll be available in UK spec ready to fly in 3 months time.
Would we have enough people, pilots,engineers etc to crew these aircraft straight away or if not, how long would the lead time be before this would happen?
I'm not military and not wanting to start a debate of which service would be able to man them the fastest but just curious to know how quickly we'd be able to utilise any new helicopters.
Thanks.
Would we have enough people, pilots,engineers etc to crew these aircraft straight away or if not, how long would the lead time be before this would happen?
I'm not military and not wanting to start a debate of which service would be able to man them the fastest but just curious to know how quickly we'd be able to utilise any new helicopters.
Thanks.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out in the big bad world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oooh no, we can't go to sea!
CBTL
Any particular reasons it may be bad for the Puma fleet or would the flexibility to be able to operate to and from ships fill the light gray with fear? Since CHF (and other deck capable SH) have spent most of the time since 2003 in sandy places, rather than embarked, it wouldn't be much of a worry. Surely a ship-borne capability is another string to your bow, rather than a stone around your neck?
Any particular reasons it may be bad for the Puma fleet or would the flexibility to be able to operate to and from ships fill the light gray with fear? Since CHF (and other deck capable SH) have spent most of the time since 2003 in sandy places, rather than embarked, it wouldn't be much of a worry. Surely a ship-borne capability is another string to your bow, rather than a stone around your neck?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Isn't the Cougar 2 based on the Puma? Don't they suffer from the same 'wobbly on deck' problems as the Puma?
The Cof G is an issue with the Puma HC1 and coupled with the AP (excuse the pun) it is not cleared for deck landings. However, the Cougar and Super Puma are cleared; therefore, it would be safe to assume the the C2 may have the same clearances. Obviously a check of the small print in the RTS would be required. But hey, the guys who sign the contracts would have that covered anyway............or B.
