Comments on: What Next for Callsign Grizzly 1 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/what-next-for-callsign-grizzly-1/ A progressive view on UK military affairs Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:38:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DominicJ http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/what-next-for-callsign-grizzly-1/#comment-656 DominicJ Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:15:54 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=1560#comment-656 That is a good one, be interesting to see if Gordon is prepared to push over this. A share in EADS is currently $20 £6b in penelty charges is 450m shares. There a currently only 811m shares in EADS Realistically, we should demand 50% ownership of EADS over this. Will Brown? That is a good one, be interesting to see if Gordon is prepared to push over this.

A share in EADS is currently $20
£6b in penelty charges is 450m shares.
There a currently only 811m shares in EADS

Realistically, we should demand 50% ownership of EADS over this.

Will Brown?

]]> By: Phil Darley http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/what-next-for-callsign-grizzly-1/#comment-655 Phil Darley Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:59:15 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=1560#comment-655 Anyone else seen this on Reuters? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60405S20100105 Lookas like EADS want to quit the A400M project to protect their civilian work. It seems that the military are holding them to their fisxed price contract and the associated penalties for delays and EADS don't want to play anymore.... Interesting NON!!!! Anyone else seen this on Reuters?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60405S20100105

Lookas like EADS want to quit the A400M project to protect their civilian work. It seems that the military are holding them to their fisxed price contract and the associated penalties for delays and EADS don’t want to play anymore….

Interesting NON!!!!

]]> By: Euan Stewart http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/what-next-for-callsign-grizzly-1/#comment-462 Euan Stewart Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:43:13 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=1560#comment-462 Thanks for the heads up Jed, Just went and read the post on the ARES blog. Bad news I would say, we should have told them honour the contract or we are gone as we simply don’t have any money to pay for higher unit costs. If we are definitely set to get only get 14-19 aircraft then yes I would argue dumping it would be the better option than paying the same amount of cash for less aircraft. The first option I think should then be more C-17’s since that line is due to close and has much less similarity with the A400M or C-130J in regards to payload and role. The point is the A400M is a C-130 replacement for the RAF not a C-17 replacement so buying additional C-17’s would not duplicate similar capabilities. Odd but the idea is that it would still leave open the option to buy the A400M at a later date. A larger C-17 fleet would be able to fulfil the strategic airlift role to better effect while freeing up the C-130J’s for tactical work. A few more C-130J’s could be ordered but the delivery lead time is not much shorter than that of the A400M, I would still favour the majority of funds be directed towards a C-17 purchase. The idea should work in the near to medium term as we look set to be committed to operations in Afghanistan for many years to come so airlift will be needed to maintain our presence. When withdrawal comes larger transports should also help speed withdrawal of forces which would be beneficial for PR. Well that was me with my A400M sceptic hat firmly on so on the other hand we could just accept a higher price and slash our aircraft orders. In the much longer term we would still benefit from its (supposed) much lower maintenance and running costs as well as commonalty with allies. There would also be no risk to industrial work share (debatable) safeguarding some Jobs and therefore votes (debatable again). Thanks for the heads up Jed, Just went and read the post on the ARES blog. Bad news I would say, we should have told them honour the contract or we are gone as we simply don’t have any money to pay for higher unit costs. If we are definitely set to get only get 14-19 aircraft then yes I would argue dumping it would be the better option than paying the same amount of cash for less aircraft. The first option I think should then be more C-17’s since that line is due to close and has much less similarity with the A400M or C-130J in regards to payload and role. The point is the A400M is a C-130 replacement for the RAF not a C-17 replacement so buying additional C-17’s would not duplicate similar capabilities. Odd but the idea is that it would still leave open the option to buy the A400M at a later date. A larger C-17 fleet would be able to fulfil the strategic airlift role to better effect while freeing up the C-130J’s for tactical work. A few more C-130J’s could be ordered but the delivery lead time is not much shorter than that of the A400M, I would still favour the majority of funds be directed towards a C-17 purchase.

The idea should work in the near to medium term as we look set to be committed to operations in Afghanistan for many years to come so airlift will be needed to maintain our presence. When withdrawal comes larger transports should also help speed withdrawal of forces which would be beneficial for PR.

Well that was me with my A400M sceptic hat firmly on so on the other hand we could just accept a higher price and slash our aircraft orders. In the much longer term we would still benefit from its (supposed) much lower maintenance and running costs as well as commonalty with allies. There would also be no risk to industrial work share (debatable) safeguarding some Jobs and therefore votes (debatable again).

]]> By: Jed http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/what-next-for-callsign-grizzly-1/#comment-460 Jed Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:12:37 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=1560#comment-460 The ARES blog reports that the UK has told EADS that as our coffers are completely empty, there will be no more development money from the UK and that depending on the final 'list' price the RAF would get between 14 and 19 aircraft (down from 25). In other words introduce a whole new type, with its attendant training and logistics overheads for 1 squadron. I think we would be better off bolstering the C130J force and buying some more C17's. The ARES blog reports that the UK has told EADS that as our coffers are completely empty, there will be no more development money from the UK and that depending on the final ‘list’ price the RAF would get between 14 and 19 aircraft (down from 25).

In other words introduce a whole new type, with its attendant training and logistics overheads for 1 squadron.

I think we would be better off bolstering the C130J force and buying some more C17′s.

]]> By: Euan Stewart http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/12/what-next-for-callsign-grizzly-1/#comment-446 Euan Stewart Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:53:37 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=1560#comment-446 The A400M flies congratulations Airbus but in my opinion it’s not that big an occasion in reality as the road ahead is long and challenging. If the Wright Brothers could get an aircraft made from cloth, wood and string into the air then it’s only right that Airbus should manage to get the A400M flying. This first test flight was relatively straightforward and the aircraft has yet to be inspected to see how it handled the stresses of its first flight. The main challenge is fulfilling the specifications and capabilities that Airbus promised its customers which some argue and for very good reason it will fail to meet. The program is already massively behind schedule and over budget by quite some amount so Airbus still has everything to prove and must be careful to ensure the testing proceeds close to schedule. The main purpose I think this test flight has accomplished is hopefully placating those who doubted the program and could possibly help save the program from cancellation as funds are extremely tight. The chances of the United States purchasing the aircraft are very slim although they do exist as pointed out by the author. However the USAF will be at a crossroads soon on what to replace the bulk of the C-130 fleet with as currently they are being slowly replaced with J model aircraft. An option would be a switch to the A400M after it has proven itself in a few years time although it seems more likely the US will want to stick with the C-130J for commonality and political considerations. The A400M could be in with a chance depending on which team if anyone actually wins the massive tanker contract if Boeing wins the Northrop/EADS supporters could push for the A400M to be considered. The ideal being to appease the Northrop/EADS partnership and supporters so that they at least get something while the US military also gets something that it could find useful. EADS is already making inroads in the US market and this would be an area where they could compete considering the niche the aircraft has. I can hear the chorus of the Boeing and protectionist fan boys moaning about this suggestion already (I don’t know if many of them read this blog but I may as well add it) all I will say is that it is not as barmy as you may think. The A400M flies congratulations Airbus but in my opinion it’s not that big an occasion in reality as the road ahead is long and challenging. If the Wright Brothers could get an aircraft made from cloth, wood and string into the air then it’s only right that Airbus should manage to get the A400M flying. This first test flight was relatively straightforward and the aircraft has yet to be inspected to see how it handled the stresses of its first flight. The main challenge is fulfilling the specifications and capabilities that Airbus promised its customers which some argue and for very good reason it will fail to meet. The program is already massively behind schedule and over budget by quite some amount so Airbus still has everything to prove and must be careful to ensure the testing proceeds close to schedule. The main purpose I think this test flight has accomplished is hopefully placating those who doubted the program and could possibly help save the program from cancellation as funds are extremely tight.

The chances of the United States purchasing the aircraft are very slim although they do exist as pointed out by the author. However the USAF will be at a crossroads soon on what to replace the bulk of the C-130 fleet with as currently they are being slowly replaced with J model aircraft. An option would be a switch to the A400M after it has proven itself in a few years time although it seems more likely the US will want to stick with the C-130J for commonality and political considerations. The A400M could be in with a chance depending on which team if anyone actually wins the massive tanker contract if Boeing wins the Northrop/EADS supporters could push for the A400M to be considered. The ideal being to appease the Northrop/EADS partnership and supporters so that they at least get something while the US military also gets something that it could find useful. EADS is already making inroads in the US market and this would be an area where they could compete considering the niche the aircraft has. I can hear the chorus of the Boeing and protectionist fan boys moaning about this suggestion already (I don’t know if many of them read this blog but I may as well add it) all I will say is that it is not as barmy as you may think.

]]>