Bear in mind that Airbus are currently implementing their pulse line rate at the Seville FAL. iirc 17 were physically assembled last year thus nearly at a 1.5 a month with an expectation to build up to 2.5 a month once the pulse line rate has bedded down and further orders are taken. Of those A400M deliveries scheduled over the next 4 years some are options that may be exercised such as the RAF (3). Spain and Germany likewise may exercise their build options and on-sell to prospective buyers.
Embraer have stated that they can suspend Brazilian Air Force orders to meet overseas demands
KC390 cargo compartment = just shy of 12m if ramp space not included ('cos surely the ramp has a lower weight bearing capacity & limits capacity to some degree). C130J-30 has same of just over 15m - so the stretched version looks to me to offer a slightly better capacity, especially where load volume trumps load weight....thoughts!?!
A slightly longer cabin to hold an extra pallet or 2, but still the same size as in height and width. Something we hope they look at seriously for our oversize loads we have now and into the next 40 years.
The FAMC and FASC are not been looked at as an overall package at all. Defence are desirable of synergies where possible, not a necessity. The only reason that the FASC RFI was released at the same time was to allow / encourage respondents to include possible synergies between the two. that is from the preamble to the documents.
The fat lady hasn't sung yet and all bets are still on. A very important point to remember is that we do not know the budget that has been allocated for the FAMC. We are aware of what the old budget was around, but what is the current one? That is a state secret.
Everyone's new friend Mr Trump might know it better than us and want it to be much higher.
Actually that is an interesting point. As we know Trump is demanding that some nations had better pull their socks up with respect to Defence spending. One on one FTA's for example will likely be more overt in demanding the triangulation of trade, diplomacy and defense on the US end of the bargaining table if the relationship is to get traction with them. We do pretty well with the first two however defence is often a cognitive vacuum in the minds of most NZ politicians, commentators and officials. We need there business more than they need ours and real politik on our end may have to sharpen up - especially when dealing with the kind of principal advisors he has surrounded himself with.
I noticed Bill English said yesterday that he didn't hold out great hope for a NZ US FTA because there are things that the Trump wants regarding America first that we wouldn't agree too. He said that there is talk about maybe looking at a TTP without the US. I also note that the Korea Times said that South Korea is now looking at more bilateral FTAs.
You are right, did not make my meaning clear, but I think a link due to overall financing is probable and that the Tactical and strategic will be viewed as a package to get the overall result, but not necessarily acquired from the same source.
Ha, won't fit unless you take the SAFE (Airbus) hangar apart first and rebuild a bigger one. As Ngati said , we don't know what the budget is and they in the past can be stretched when the business case justifies it, that could be the telling point.
Whenuapei might be closer to the mark as $80m is earmarked from the Defence Estate Regeneration Plan over the next 8 years for the Arch Hangar – Sub-Programme which will include $20m to upgrade the existing arch hangers, $15m for a new Logistics Despatch Warehouse, $10m for a new Base Operations and Fire Rescue Building, another $10m for a Safety and Surface Workshop, and a further $25m on expanded hardstanding.
Has a running cost analysis been done to compare say C 130 J, KC 390, A400 m? Would be curious to now how much more it would be for fueling ect. per hr
They're the kind of details which the evaluation team will either have or be looking for, when the business cases are analysed.
the eval team normally draws up various op-perf matrices to compare against baselines - have had to do it a number of times on diff projects I've been a member of the eval teams
watched a video with A400 yesterday on you tube and pretty sure the pilot afterwards was saying 7000ib of fuel an hour in cruise but cannot seem to find the video now as I saw quite a few. will continue search.
That's not the usual type of movies you S&S bods usually watch. Have you lost your crayons or is the bar shut?
NO. It is not a viable concept at the moment and would not be accepted as such by the NZG because the criteria state that the platforms offered have to be certified and in service.