Wedgetails delayed
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
flag !
repeated warnings not to have country bashing ignored ! moderator please take note of this.
flag !
off topic and totally irrelevant collins class SSK mention
flag !
illiteracy, lionnoisy cant read. he's basically resummarizing what he has been posting and considered as anti-australia rants.
3 strikes and you are out ! raise the red flag ! wooohooo !
i also refer to my immediate fren upstair.
country bashing
Do u include Republic of Singapore as country?
Why are there so many threads bashing SG in Speaker,s Corners?
2.When and where did i breach this rule in any posting?
Yes,I am wrong on M 777 heli.How to carry SAR 21.these few items.
If u talk about my postings on oz on every aspects,
pl tell me which post is not backed with facts but baseless allegations?
Tell me.
I follow every letter and the spirit of the rule
set down by Centurion MBT in Speaker Corner!!
"All Statements here Must be backed with facts and not baseless allegations."
I also quote ALL my sources and link so u guys can verify.
All info about come from main stream medias and official sources,
backed with links and sources ,dates,document name etc.
Tell me if i forget and show me if i did not quote sources.
Many here just quote and go,withouy my repeated appeals
to quote sources!
@@@@@@@@@@@
the main problems is the info is about oz.If it is another country,
u guys will not be so angry.
i wander if my English is better,will u guys bash me so hard!!
Good nite.
PS tell me if any of my postings are not facts.
-
very clearly, very simply
from centurionMBT
1. We have already specificly said no country bashing threads on the sticky. Whether you want to follow the guidelines or not is up to you. Dun blame us if your post get hijacked again.
2.Your method of presenting your stuff is absolutely disgusting. the information is incoherent, and often out of point. We can't understand what you are writing, we can't read what you are writing and we don't want to kill our braincells trying to read what you are writing.
3. When a person ask you a question, answer it. Don't start throwing rethorics and expect people to answer you. You are more of a damned pest then anything else.
4. Don't dig out stuff that had happened years ago. It is fine if you want to live in the past. We don't.
5. I will create a thread specifically for chatting and stuff, please keep the main forum clean.
ok
your post just violated 4 out of 5 warnings. why ?cant read isit ? or just too stupid to get it through ?
- you still havent answered what is a queene.you mentioned it, you must answer when someone ask you. WHATS A QUEENE ?
- so collins is an orphan system. by your definition of being a one off and unsupported ? what about the Sjoormen class ?
people up north can afford to buy brand new scorpenes, we buy nearly 50 year old subs. old enough to be your grandfather ? i think its much better to own a orphan class then a relic/grandfather/almost due for scrap class submarine right ?
question time : why people dont support you and no one come forward to say, yea we agree with lionnoisy ? ask yourself. why ? what is stopping them ? why no one tell you nicely or gently that your focus and your scope is all wrong ?why no one bother to say, look lionnoisy, yes what you say has a certain degree of truth, but it is not the accurate picture.
you are looking at an ant and declaring that the ant army is invading your house. its WRONG EXTRAPOLATION. remember remember, systems not platforms. cost and benefits, strategic bonus and v
fact : collins class has problem. truth : which weapons system does not have procurement/teething problem ? only lionnoisy mind cannot be abit more flexible and think out of dichotomy terms
FACT WHICH YOU DONT KNOW : collins class is highly rated and is a unique proposition, being the largest non-nuclear sub in the world, quiet and all round force multiplier for RAN.
let me sum it up in point form for you
1) nobody wants to hear the rant about the collins class. fact : nobody gives a damned about collins class being an orphan system. aside from the Japanese boats, they are probably the best diesel boats this side of the pacific. any given day ild rather they be in friendly hands than to a potentially hostile force.
maybe you'd like to face off against your "orphan systems" and see how well they perform against you ?
2) READ : dont post your nonsense links and call it "FACTS and not BASELESS allegations".
you want me to dig up one of your sources and critique it ? why dare not reply in the other thread after i ran through your sources and found out that NONE OF THEM were relevant ?
having no contextual knowledge is bad enough, no effort made to acquire that is unforgivable. and you love to quote your "FACTS" out of context havent you realize ?
a one-line statement : MK47 STRIKER grenade launcher in a single column in a single box, dosent say anything lionnoisy. it simply proves you are an idiot waiting to get beaten and flamed with a big stick online.
3) tell me lionnoisy, what is your logic here saying ? tell me, what is it you get out of flaming australia ? tell me why you have problems with anything they buy ?
why dont u critique SAF SAR21 ? scope problem, LAD zeroing problem, Scope zeroing, non stanag magazine, no modularity ?
why you so bigoted against other nations ? speakers corner and milnuts here is different. milnuts explicitly no bashing of other countries/ country vs country scenario.
outside can smoke, inside of restraunt cannot smoke. cant differentiate between the two isit lionnoisy ? trying to apply your supremely flawed logic again is it ? wake up and smell the napalm dearie. its NOT THE SAME DAMNED thing.
lastly, i apologize to weasel. this cretin here has ruined this thread. it was shaping up to be an interesting discussion.
-
I have confidences on the choice of SG's Gulfstream.
It certainly help some more to learn that Boeing also choose
Gulfstream 550 in US US$2 billion BAMS--Board Area Surveillance programme.
JDW 01.08.2007 .In 2004,each 550 cost US$ 43.75 millions.
I have to double check.Yes Boeing confirmed 550 choice.
@@@@@@@@@
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/paris07/assets/paris_bams_p-8a_brief.pdf
Persistent ISR forthe 21st Century.
Tony Parasida,Vice President,
Anti-Submarine Warfare and Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance.June 19, 2007
The BAMS 550 Team
•Boeing prime contractor
•Principal subcontractors
–Gulfstream
•Provides the G550 aircraft
–Raytheon
•Provides the advanced digital radar system, electronic support measures, and electro-optical infrared system
–Honeywell
•Provides vehicle management and control
–Rolls-Royce
•Provides the BR710-C4-11 engines -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
I have confidences on the choice of SG's Gulfstream.
It certainly help some more to learn that Boeing also choose
Gulfstream 550 in US US$2 billion BAMS--Board Area Surveillance programme.
JDW 01.08.2007 .In 2004,each 550 cost US$ 43.75 millions.
I have to double check.Yes Boeing confirmed 550 choice.
@@@@@@@@@
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/paris07/assets/paris_bams_p-8a_brief.pdf
Persistent ISR forthe 21st Century.
Tony Parasida,Vice President,
Anti-Submarine Warfare and Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance.June 19, 2007
The BAMS 550 Team
•Boeing prime contractor
•Principal subcontractors
–Gulfstream
•Provides the G550 aircraft
–Raytheon
•Provides the advanced digital radar system, electronic support measures, and electro-optical infrared system
–Honeywell
•Provides vehicle management and control
–Rolls-Royce
•Provides the BR710-C4-11 engines
and so Mcdonalds is an international food brand, you'd eat Mcdonalds for every meal ?
i think thats good for you. you ought to eat Mcdonald's for every meal. afterall, 30,000 restraunts in over 100 countries with annual revenue of 23.71 billion and growing presence in all markets with 75.62 billion dollars in market capitalization as of 21st dec o8 according to yahoo finance.
so brand power dictates everything now eh ? gulfstream good means everyone should use gulfstream ?
and wedgetail being a revolutionary platform is absolute junk ?
*YAWN* just because i m not around these past few days dosent give you an excuse to crap around the place. dont worry. i'd be right here and about to remind you how abject fail your crapping is.
-
The fact that Boeing chose the Gulstream 550 doesn't prove or disprove anything with regards to AWACS. You are truly one big idiot.
The role of AWACS is entirely different from maritime surveillance. How can you use this simple fact of choosing one aircraft for maritime surveillance as justification for AWACS choice?
Anyway the Global Hawk is the front runner for this program anyway. Does that mean that the Global Hawk kicks ass over the Gulfstream?
Oh yeah, using your spastic logic, it's really reassuring to know that the aircraft chosen for the P3C Orion replacement is the Boeing 737. Good for Aussie Wedgetail.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
The fact that Boeing chose the Gulstream 550 doesn't prove or disprove anything with regards to AWACS. You are truly one big idiot.
The role of AWACS is entirely different from maritime surveillance. How can you use this simple fact of choosing one aircraft for maritime surveillance as justification for AWACS choice?
Anyway the Global Hawk is the front runner for this program anyway. Does that mean that the Global Hawk kicks ass over the Gulfstream?
Oh yeah, using your spastic logic, it's really reassuring to know that the aircraft chosen for the P3C Orion replacement is the Boeing 737. Good for Aussie Wedgetail.
can u read one more time what i say:
I have confidences on the choice of SG's Gulfstream.
It certainly help some more to learn that Boeing also choose
Gulfstream 550 in US US$2 billion BAMS--Board Area Surveillance programme.
JDW 01.08.2007 .In 2004,each 550 cost US$ 43.75 millions.
I have to double check.Yes Boeing confirmed 550 choice.
@@@@@@@@@
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/paris07/assets/paris_bams_p-8a_brief.pdf
Persistent ISR forthe 21st Century.
Tony Parasida,Vice President,
Anti-Submarine Warfare and Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance.June 19, 2007
The BAMS 550 Team
•Boeing prime contractor
•Principal subcontractors
–Gulfstream
•Provides the G550 aircraft
–Raytheon
•Provides the advanced digital radar system, electronic support measures, and electro-optical infrared system
–Honeywell
•Provides vehicle management and control
–Rolls-Royce
•Provides the BR710-C4-11 enginesI have not mentioned oz mega but delayed AWACS directly and indirectly.
The above is a my assessment on SG'd choice of Gulfstream 550.
Thats all.Nowadays,i dare not make comparsions lah....
@@@@@@@
pl distinguish between decription and value judgement statement,
like It is not good or A is better than B etc.
nnnn
-
flamebait +1
lionnoisy acting up again. deliberately (maybe somewhat unwittingly since he is in possession of a sense of UNLOGIC / deliberate disconnect from reality) provoking others by baiting them into a response
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
flamebait +1
lionnoisy acting up again. deliberately (maybe somewhat unwittingly since he is in possession of a sense of UNLOGIC / deliberate disconnect from reality) provoking others by baiting them into a response
since i am so bad in logic and English,i think i better leave to DMO of Oz
to tell u wat happen.U guys will tell me "Hey Lion,
SG defense is so secretive and dunt tell us all these failures,wastage,etc.''
Well i dunt know if there are such failures ,projects mismanagements etc.
Ok I cant say there is none.Since ST can produce or intergarte all these
products and can roll out ALMOST ALL defense stuff Singapore need,
ST or MINDEF,DSTA<DSO can be forgiven with our limited budgets from this
4.8 million country.BTW,how many stuff other country can make with so
small budget?
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@22
I am almost fainted to read these...
The price for these lessons are too high---
DMO said on Wedgetails:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/dmo/function.cfm?function_id=10
DMO 2007-08 Major Projects Report (MPR) pdf
(4.09 mb)
Friday, 31 October 2008--page 674.2 Major Project Issues
Description Remedial Action
Current major project issues fall within the following
categories:
• Technical performance short falls; and
• Contract management.
Technical performance shortfalls arise due to some
sub-systems not meeting contracted performance
requirements.
Contract management issues relate to an contractor
schedule that does not take account of technical risk
and an inability to reach agreement with Boeing for a
workable and affordable In Service Support Contract.....EOQSection 5
5.1 Key Lessons Learned
Lesson
In the context of pre-project planning, the need to better appreciate the effort involved in being a customer of a first-of type program.
Underestimating the length of time required and effort involved in undertaking these phases when applied to a complex, highly developmental system.
Better appreciating the challenges involved in contractor management in a complex developmental project.
Recognising the need for pro-active risk management and the use of high-end risk management tools.
The need for industry to pay greater attention to adequately resourcing complex and highly developmental projects.
Early recognition of the need for proactive stakeholder engagement throughout the project.
The need to provide adequate resources with sufficient lead-time to develop and execute the evaluation and negotiating phases for the in-service support component of a first-of type capability.---EOQ -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
since i am so bad in logic and English,i think i better leave to DMO of Oz
to tell u wat happen.U guys will tell me "Hey Lion,
SG defense is so secretive and dunt tell us all these failures,wastage,etc.''
Well i dunt know if there are such failures ,projects mismanagements etc.
good that you know that.
now STFU. kindly spare the forum your nonsense and crap.
well, we dont know whether you have a brain (metaphorically) or whether its being used (literally), but that is open to speculation eh ? clearly in you case, the evidence is irrefutable and the majority consensus stands.
Since ST can produce or intergarte all these
products and can roll out ALMOST ALL defense stuff Singapore need,
ST or MINDEF,DSTA<DSO can be forgiven with our limited budgets from this
4.8 million country.BTW,how many stuff other country can make with so
small budget?
hmm, lets look at israel ok ?
EW systems
popeye cruise missiles
LAVI project
MERKAVA heavy armour
NAMER APC
SOLTAM mortars and artillery
not to mention munition industries like their own bunker busters
RAFAEL( RWS, Missiles , whole load of other stuff)
ELBIT systems(UAV)
Spike missiles
Nukes
TAR-21, TAR-21 compact
who can forget the iconic UZI ?
IAI - Heron, Searcher I and searcher IIin comparison to STK, what have or can we actually make that is 100% indigeneous ?
LST ?
SAR 21 (this is a concession given that the design was gained when STK bought it over from an american)please lah, dont flamebait here. you are asking for your ass to be kicked and kicked hard and merciless.
dont be an idiot with your rah rah singapura.
fact 1) STK is a kuching kurup small fish in the arms industry
fact 2) STK does not possess the R&D and technical knowledge capability that other developed industry players have across weapons platforms. STK's field is somewhat strong in aviation MROs , light infantry weapons and Naval vessels, other than that, it can be considered to be a flyweight in other categories
fact 3) STK has no large core domestic market to sustain or export to, which is a significant cap on its growth prospects and possible expansion plans -
Originally posted by sgstars:
hmm but arent business jets more costly to operate if you compare to a 737 ? i.e, there are several hundred 737s flying all over the world, and with airasia , lionair and tiger using 737s, parts should be somewhat readily avaliable in SEA region.
at least in terms of parts avaliability, gulfstream may not be exactly the most economical platform, but i do wonder, why 4 gulfstreams when we can make do with 2 of the larger wedgetails ?
turnaround/downtime for maintainence ? but is there significant tradeoffs in terms of performance ?
Bigger planes use more material & part, so more expensive. Even if there is more 737, does not mean that it is cheaper to maintain, you must consider hanger size you needed for do maintance, bigger maintance crew, bigger parts ( more costly parts cost & transport cost due to weight and size), more time to maintance as parts are heavier and bigger handle and a lot more smaller parts. Also to remeber most parts are make in oversea - you need to air freight or ship freight that in, thus a bigger plane = huge part, will mean more cost in part transport and pose more problem, you also need more storage space for spare parts
737 is so much heavier, use up more fuel, then a smaller jet like Gulfstream, but commerical airlines - because to them more paylot = paying customer.
Why 4 and not 2 ? That we have to look at the US carrier group. Their airspace is like singapore size. Over the years, they have work out 4 E-2C is needed. Why singapore have so many refueling tankers ? That already tell you, we are prepare to have operations further away and longer mission time. In a war, we will need 1 to be on station for our air defence, of course at the same time we will carry out also forward strike and air superiority mission which another 1 will be covering the forward mission which is far away. Those 2 due to fuel and human endurance, will need to be relieve, the next 2 plane will need to be on station 1st before they come back due to that we lack defence depth. This is to ensure there is no gap in the radar coverage
However the numbers needed is more bases on different geographical situation, if a country like aust, which is far from others, and have huge sea to provide the need defense depth, even with gap in coverage, the next shift of radar plane will still pick them up in time for action to be taken. Sadly we don't have that type of depth - thus 4 is required.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
i also refer to my immediate fren upstair.
country bashing
Do u include Republic of Singapore as country?
Why are there so many threads bashing SG in Speaker,s Corners?
2.When and where did i breach this rule in any posting?
Yes,I am wrong on M 777 heli.How to carry SAR 21.these few items.
If u talk about my postings on oz on every aspects,
pl tell me which post is not backed with facts but baseless allegations?
Tell me.
I follow every letter and the spirit of the rule
set down by Centurion MBT in Speaker Corner!!
I also quote ALL my sources and link so u guys can verify.
All info about come from main stream medias and official sources,
backed with links and sources ,dates,document name etc.
Tell me if i forget and show me if i did not quote sources.
Many here just quote and go,withouy my repeated appeals
to quote sources!
@@@@@@@@@@@
the main problems is the info is about oz.If it is another country,
u guys will not be so angry.
i wander if my English is better,will u guys bash me so hard!!
Good nite.
PS tell me if any of my postings are not facts.
This is not "Speaker Corner" !!! You want to bash country, or talk about what others do there, go to "Speaker Corner" there to talk, since you know it exist, you got no excuse of not doing it there.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Bigger planes use more material & part, so more expensive. Even if there is more 737, does not mean that it is cheaper to maintain, you must consider hanger size you needed for do maintance, bigger maintance crew, bigger parts ( more costly parts cost & transport cost due to weight and size), more time to maintance as parts are heavier and bigger handle and a lot more smaller parts. Also to remeber most parts are make in oversea - you need to air freight or ship freight that in, thus a bigger plane = huge part, will mean more cost in part transport and pose more problem, you also need more storage space for spare parts
do consider why the P8/P-8I uses a 737 as a base platform for martitime survelliance and do consider why the wedgetail is using a 737.
1) bigger does not mean more expensive in terms of material & parts. do think about the potential cost savings. the 737 is one of the most flown passenger airliners in the world. think not so much of individual costs but economies of scale.
with a 737 fleet of AWACS, you enjoy economies of scale derived from commercial fleets. much like in the same way the KC135 borrowed and leveraged of the boeing 707.
the number of gulfstreams around the world is FAR lesser than 737s.
2) is hangar space really that important when RSAF can afford to maintain KC135 and C130 ? afterall, we own Paya lebar airbase.
in any case, larger aircraft are usually parked outdoors. only during maintainence they are parked in hangars. Fighter / combat aircraft is the reverse. hangar space is an non-issue.
similarly maintainence crew and support have been outsourced to STK. even the flying course / familiarization training for the gulfstream has been outsourced to STK. if we chose the 737, it would cost even cheaper as there are plenty of 737 MRO (maintainence repair & overhaul) facilities around our part of the world, training is also a non-issue as 737 training schools can be readily found in australia and other parts of the world.
3) parts not located locally ? non-issue. like i mentioned, STK aeronautics and SIA engineering are certified boeing and airbus MRO. RSAF can easily make a deal with them to stock and service parts.
how difficult can it be ?
737 will offer longer endurance and greater payload (can be configured for modularity) unlike the small platform size of the G550 which represents a greater liability. the 737 represents a greater possibility of turnaround time/less maintainence downtime with all the commercial support infrastructure readily avaliable if STK is not able to provide sufficient service (which i doubt)
the only disadvantage might be operation costs ( fuel burnt per flight hour) and needing 3 units (1 on standby, 1 in operational service and 1 in reserve) which could represent increased upfront acquisition costs.
-
good news lah
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090115a_pr.html
Boeing Completes 1st Aerial Refuelings of 737 for Australia's Wedgetail AEW&C ProgramSEATTLE, Jan. 15, 2009 -- Boeing has completed the first aerial refuelings of a 737 platform. The historic flights were conducted for Australia's Project Wedgetail, an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) program. Shown here is the 737-700 Wedgetail aircraft receiving fuel from a U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker during a flight over Edwards Air Force Base in California. The aircraft also was refueled by an Air Force KC-10 tanker.
Boeing Completes 1st Aerial Refuelings of 737 for Australia's Wedgetail AEW&C Program
Click image to view Photo Release.These images are available for editorial use by news media on: boeingmedia.comSEATTLE, Jan. 15, 2009 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced it has completed the first aerial refuelings of a 737 platform. The historic flights were conducted for Project Wedgetail, Australia's airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) program.
Flying at 25,000 feet above Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on Jan. 7, Boeing pilot Ron Johnston maneuvered the 737-700 AEW&C aircraft into a U.S. Air Force KC-10 tanker's refueling boom envelope and easily maintained its position below the tanker. The 737 received approximately 14,000 pounds of fuel during two connections with the tanker.
"The aircraft was stable, with excellent flying qualities and engine response behind the tanker," said Johnston.
The aircraft achieved another aerial-refueling first on Jan. 10, when it received fuel from an Air Force KC-135 tanker.
"The 737 AEW&C aircraft's highly automated and efficient refueling system worked flawlessly in both tests," said Maureen Dougherty, AEW&C Program vice president for Boeing. "This is a key milestone in certifying the AEW&C system.
"Air-to-air refueling is a force multiplier for the AEW&C aircraft," Dougherty added, "allowing it to stay on station for significantly longer periods of time while providing critical battle-management and surveillance capabilities."
Project Wedgetail includes six 737 AEW&C aircraft plus ground support segments for mission crew training, mission support and system maintenance.--EOQ
-
wrong post
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
do consider why the P8/P-8I uses a 737 as a base platform for martitime survelliance and do consider why the wedgetail is using a 737.
1) bigger does not mean more expensive in terms of material & parts. do think about the potential cost savings. the 737 is one of the most flown passenger airliners in the world. think not so much of individual costs but economies of scale.
with a 737 fleet of AWACS, you enjoy economies of scale derived from commercial fleets. much like in the same way the KC135 borrowed and leveraged of the boeing 707.
the number of gulfstreams around the world is FAR lesser than 737s.
2) is hangar space really that important when RSAF can afford to maintain KC135 and C130 ? afterall, we own Paya lebar airbase.
in any case, larger aircraft are usually parked outdoors. only during maintainence they are parked in hangars. Fighter / combat aircraft is the reverse. hangar space is an non-issue.
similarly maintainence crew and support have been outsourced to STK. even the flying course / familiarization training for the gulfstream has been outsourced to STK. if we chose the 737, it would cost even cheaper as there are plenty of 737 MRO (maintainence repair & overhaul) facilities around our part of the world, training is also a non-issue as 737 training schools can be readily found in australia and other parts of the world.
3) parts not located locally ? non-issue. like i mentioned, STK aeronautics and SIA engineering are certified boeing and airbus MRO. RSAF can easily make a deal with them to stock and service parts.
how difficult can it be ?
737 will offer longer endurance and greater payload (can be configured for modularity) unlike the small platform size of the G550 which represents a greater liability. the 737 represents a greater possibility of turnaround time/less maintainence downtime with all the commercial support infrastructure readily avaliable if STK is not able to provide sufficient service (which i doubt)
the only disadvantage might be operation costs ( fuel burnt per flight hour) and needing 3 units (1 on standby, 1 in operational service and 1 in reserve) which could represent increased upfront acquisition costs.
1) bigger planes - more material to build it, more wiring, more work !!! simple rules that you also can choose to ignore. Economy of scale does not apply blindly. SBS and Trans operate what buses ? look the private sector also have all sort of buses sizes from large, mid and small. If based on your theory, everyone should be following SBS and trans and buy the same model - economy of scale - parts cheaper !!! But in real, that is not the case, other models of buses still manage and get parts that is of good prices !!! There is still different mid size buses and small size busess operating, if based on your logic - everyone should use SBS size buses, economy of scale, obviously that the buses owner know better then you , if you don't have that load, why get a more expensive and bigger bus.
2) certain work, need to be done in hangers, military aircraft like radar plane cannot be treated like transport plane, sometime you need to put them in hanger for tactical reason.
3) storing of parts ? these are expensive item, usually people just do mininal storage of those item, due to cost of item, cost of storage, also obsolete items. Where you been ? nowaday, people don't stock too much of expensive item, why pay for storage, when manufacturer - can deliver to you when ever you need ?
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
1) bigger planes - more material to build it, more wiring, more work !!! simple rules that you also can choose to ignore. Economy of scale does not apply blindly. SBS and Trans operate what buses ? look the private sector also have all sort of buses sizes from large, mid and small. If based on your theory, everyone should be following SBS and trans and buy the same model - economy of scale - parts cheaper !!! But in real, that is not the case, other models of buses still manage and get parts that is of good prices !!! There is still different mid size buses and small size busess operating, if based on your logic - everyone should use SBS size buses, economy of scale, obviously that the buses owner know better then you , if you don't have that load, why get a more expensive and bigger bus.
lets not use the term economies of scale without thinking them through ok ? 1 bus maintainence how much ?
say 10% of lifetime costs in 1 year ok ? 10% of 400,000 is 40,000. if you have a fleet of 1,000 such buses, you cut costs by buying parts in bulk. reduce need to buy multiple parts for multiple type of buses. common engine, common.
40,000 X 1,000 = S$ 40 million dollars. but by negotiating for bulk purchase discount and reducing the need to purchase extra parts, the bus company can save a whole load of money, usually 25-30%. that would mean something like S$10 million saved.
lets say if you got 5 different buses. all different models. some cost 20,000 a year to maintain, some cost 50,000 a year to maintain. you dont enjoy economies of scale because there are little commonalities between the various models.
on the other hand, the fleet with 1,000 buses can save about 10,000 per individual unit.
lets apply this concept to the global 737 fleet ok ?
global amount of 737s : 5875 delivered (8000 ordered) as of july2008 (source: wikipedia)
global amount of Gulfstream 550s :198 delivered (correct as of Jan 2009, source wikipedia)
granted this is a extremely simplified explaination. with plenty of engine and airframe variations. but isnt it pretty clear which platform offers the long run cost effectiveness ?
take that 25% cost savings, multiplied by a lifespan of 20 years. do the math. even if it were a small figure, something like 5%, it still represents substantial savings in the very long run.
wiring is a cost that is factored within the first production figures, unlikely to incur additional costs subsequently. economists would call this a sunken cost. a fixed cost which will decline as the aircraft is operated.
2) certain work, need to be done in hangers, military aircraft like radar plane cannot be treated like transport plane, sometime you need to put them in hanger for tactical reason.
so PLAB can handle C-5 galaxy and C-17 globemaster but cannot handle a 737 ? FYI, PLAB does feature ample hangar and civil maintainence facilities.
3) storing of parts ? these are expensive item, usually people just do mininal storage of those item, due to cost of item, cost of storage, also obsolete items. Where you been ? nowaday, people don't stock too much of expensive item, why pay for storage, when manufacturer - can deliver to you when ever you need ?
dont mix up the JIT delivery model with military stockpiling. do you even realize who is maintaining the G550 ? do you even know who is conducting G550 pilot training ?
the point im making is, even if we dont stockpile, if there ever was a need for 737 parts, we can easily get it here. Easily. ST eng is a certified MRO company for 737 family of aircraft. im not sure about SIA engineering but if mindef wanted to make a special arrangement, im sure that would be extremely easy.
its all outsourced nowadays. the current trend is to give defence companies lifetime cost + fee contract.
speaking about obsolete/cost of parts, the 737 parts would be alot easier to obtain then a g550.
and FYI, STK and ST engineering have been involved with alot of RSAF aircraft, especially MROs.
-
a 737 just landed today.
An even older 727 last week. Engines mounted on the rudder.
-
Just wanted to complicate matters a bit.
B737 has multiple variants, all of which are different to the extent of almost being a completely different plane altogether. Even within the 700 series, there are differences eg ER. Same thing with gulfstream, just that their numbering happens to progress in 100s, eg GS 150, 250, 350, 450, 550 and 650.
Parts wise, engine cost is probably the most significant. The GS engine (BR710) is very widely used for commercial business jets (500+) and also selected for many other aircraft eg Nimrod MR4, Gulfstream GV-SP etc. But obviously can't compete in number with the CFM-56. The 7B variant used by the wedgetail has over 4000 engines in service.
Although economies of scale are still present, the cost-savings between a 500 engine/4000 engine is not normally that significant. Definitely less significant than 50 vs 500.
Also, managing cost for a smaller plane will be lower than a larger plane (fuel burn, manpower, etc). Parts for an altis will be cheaper than a lexus. ST aero has also bought that additional G550 for training (so there is spares at least for 1 in event of emergency).
btw, wedgetail doesn't have a longer endurance compared to RSAF G-550s. G550 has higher altitude as well (which has a big impact on radar range due to earth curvature). Main thing is Phalcon radar probably not as technologically superior compared to MESA (no problem since RSAF won't be fighting RAAF in the next 30 years).
Add the current problems RAAF is facing on the wedgetail program (4 years late), the G550 looks like a very cost-effective buy.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
1) bigger planes - more material to build it, more wiring, more work !!! simple rules that you also can choose to ignore. Economy of scale does not apply blindly. SBS and Trans operate what buses ? look the private sector also have all sort of buses sizes from large, mid and small. If based on your theory, everyone should be following SBS and trans and buy the same model - economy of scale - parts cheaper !!! But in real, that is not the case, other models of buses still manage and get parts that is of good prices !!! There is still different mid size buses and small size busess operating, if based on your logic - everyone should use SBS size buses, economy of scale, obviously that the buses owner know better then you , if you don't have that load, why get a more expensive and bigger bus.
2) certain work, need to be done in hangers, military aircraft like radar plane cannot be treated like transport plane, sometime you need to put them in hanger for tactical reason.
3) storing of parts ? these are expensive item, usually people just do mininal storage of those item, due to cost of item, cost of storage, also obsolete items. Where you been ? nowaday, people don't stock too much of expensive item, why pay for storage, when manufacturer - can deliver to you when ever you need ?
Ah, don't forget MORE COMFORT. Very important =D
I assume at cruising altitude, it should also be pretty fuel economical and can carry a 2nd set of crew/operators to enhance endurance.
2 sets of pilot n co-pilot if necessary, and 2 sets of operators, with enough comfort space for rest and all.
-
Not really that important.
With 1000-2000 targets tracked (mostly auto) and 40+ intercepts from like 3 operators, only 1 E2C needs to be in the air at anyone time. There aren't that many aircraft/fighters in the region.
The CAEW doubles the number of stations to 6 (ie only needed 3 previously). Also, datalink allows ground operator access...
The G550 also has other functions eg TBD that makes it incredibly effective.
If crew tired, then send a replacement CAEW into the air. Purpose of co-pilot is to support the pilot on long-ranged flight (that's the same for 747s doing US-SG routes). No need another 2 sets.
Other than radar, I see few advantages of the 737 platform. In fact, RAAF actually cut the size from the larger 767 to the 737 precisely because they were trying to cut space (too much unnecessary space).
-
@slim10
yeap, like i mentioned, it was a really simplified explaination. but RSAF could have the option of several (commercial MRO operators. competition lowers costs rigiht ?
not to mention the 737's popularity amongst budget airlines and as a flight school/pilot school aircraft. no shortage of pilots qualified to fly it.
-
@slim10
yeap, like i mentioned, it was a really simplified explaination. but RSAF could have the option of several (quite a few actually) commercial MRO operators. competition lowers costs rigiht ?
not to mention the 737's popularity amongst budget airlines and as a flight school/pilot school aircraft. no shortage of pilots qualified to fly it.
yeap, i know, higher operations costs. but think of the flexibility it offers. like our KC135. can tweak and have modular operational systems. like ranging from (non essential) A2A refuelling, VIP transport and to other essential operations like SIGINT, ELINT operations. maybe even concurrently. multi-role utility aircraft ?
but that being said and done, i posted the original post (about why i thought biz jets were uneconomical) when i didnt realize why the RSAF chose the gulfstream.
being able to stay out of most SAM envelopes is a most useful thing indeed.
regarding aus buy of wedgetail :
delay has not discernible impact other than operational use. besides, boeing is facing huge penalties for that delay. and its not a cost plus contract. boeing has to pay RAAF compensation for the delays in the radar integreation.
-
Why is the Phalcon inferior to the MESA ? By how much ? Is this speculation borne out of the fact that the Phalcon materialized several years earlier? The CAEW does seem to be more flexible in terms of utilty however( ability to merge minute senseless flight tracks of small RCS objects into a discernible tracks, higher altitude, longe range and the ability to take off from small runaways(our roads), etc).But that is speculation like my preceding question. The radar systems on the CAEW are not the same Phalcon system that was sold to Chile several years ago but more advanced varients. Anyone has comparable figures? Latest report on the Indian Phalcons;
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3901236&c=EUR&s=TOP
From this report, it seems that the Phalcon has a slightly wider search area where the MESA can go as far as 370km. I would like to know which is definitely better rather than speculative assumptions as per which is better. Thanks again.
-
Originally posted by Fratboy:
Why is the Phalcon inferior to the MESA ? By how much ? Is this speculation borne out of the fact that the Phalcon materialized several years earlier? The CAEW does seem to be more flexible in terms of utilty however( ability to merge minute senseless flight tracks of small RCS objects into a discernible tracks, higher altitude, longe range and the ability to take off from small runaways(our roads), etc).But that is speculation like my preceding question. The radar systems on the CAEW are not the same Phalcon system that was sold to Chile several years ago but more advanced varients. Anyone has comparable figures? Latest report on the Indian Phalcons;
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3901236&c=EUR&s=TOP
From this report, it seems that the Phalcon has a slightly wider search area where the MESA can go as far as 370km. I would like to know which is definitely better rather than speculative assumptions as per which is better. Thanks again.
usually the irony of such situations is that if we had access to information about how well the radar performs, we would be in a position that is too sensitive to disclose it properly. especially for EW platforms, if someone told you, he/she'd have to kill you.
south korea did consider the G550.
here's a good read to their G550 procurement saga. but to note some things :
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/korean-ex-helicopter-competitions-reaching-endgame-updated-01608/
In the latest round of bidding, Boeing’s E-737 “Wedgetail” slated for service with Australia and Turkey was again pitted against the Israel Aircraft Industries-led consortium’s modified G-550 long range business jet
While all observers agree that the 737 Wedgetail is the more capable system, South Korea’s Defense Ministry seems determined to go with the lowest bidder as long as the planes meet Air Force specifications. IAI ELTA is reportedly asking $1.1 billion compared to Boeing’s $1.5 billion.
maybe the aussies and the turks know something about the Wedgetail that we dont. in any case, dont recall a tender / awacs replacement contest being offered. could be some substantial behind the G550 deal / that the wedgetail wasnt offered to us.
in any case, the G550 lost out for political reasons. but there is one point that emphatically hints at the weaknesses of the G550.
This is not a completely irrational approach, if South Korea sees the military threat as fairly narrowly focused from North Korea. With water on three sides, a fairly narrow border zone, and an arsenal of short range aircraft and cruise missiles on the other side, the Defense Ministry may consider the “EG-550” proposal may to be perfectly adequate for Korea’s military needs.
plenty of potential reasons. too little public domain information to compare. but the wedgetail has outsold the G550. the only two buyers are singapore and israel.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Not really that important.
With 1000-2000 targets tracked (mostly auto) and 40+ intercepts from like 3 operators, only 1 E2C needs to be in the air at anyone time. There aren't that many aircraft/fighters in the region.
The CAEW doubles the number of stations to 6 (ie only needed 3 previously). Also, datalink allows ground operator access...
The G550 also has other functions eg TBD that makes it incredibly effective.
If crew tired, then send a replacement CAEW into the air. Purpose of co-pilot is to support the pilot on long-ranged flight (that's the same for 747s doing US-SG routes). No need another 2 sets.
Other than radar, I see few advantages of the 737 platform. In fact, RAAF actually cut the size from the larger 767 to the 737 precisely because they were trying to cut space (too much unnecessary space).
U referring to RAAF or RSAF in the first part?
In any case, the RAAF probably has a very different requirement from us given their support and operational cooperation with the Americans. They maybe sending their Wedgetails out further than we think. Having that kinda range, comfort and crew redundancy helps to keep critical aircraft airborne for as long as possible.
For us, its easy to send a few CAEWs into the air. But when the bigger powers play, they are talking about multiple AWACS airborne simultaneously. They will have more AWACs airborne at the same time, than we operate as an air force in total.
Australia is in a pretty unique position in our region. IMO, they have a great need for high endurance AWACs, and in sufficient numbers too. As I'd like to point out, regionally, we don't have any conflicts that results in an airpower contest. Historically, it has always been much greater wars that inevitably reach us. And that is the kind of situations we need to keep in mind when talking about such things.
my 2 cts anyway.