Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The End Of Eads Monopoly In Germany?  
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

According to the German Minister of Defense Guttenberg the acquisition of long needed material for the German Air Force and German Army takes too long. The development of aircraft that are now urgently needed in Afghanistan such as the Eurocopter Tiger, the NH 90 and the A400 have started more than 20 years ago.
As a result of that Guttenberg said all planned acquisitions are put to a test. He also said that in the future acquisitions would be done without considering the German and European defense industry. Material could be bought on the international market if the needed material is available elsewhere.

Link in German:http://www.zeitong.de/ng/da/2010/05/02/guttenberg-zieht-1000-soldaten-aus-dem-kosovo-ab/

The German Navy is at the moment looking at the MH 90 or the CH 148 Cyclone as a SeaKing replacement a decision will be done by the middle of the year. According to some rumors the CH 148 is the preferred option in the Navy and with some people in the MoD.
Also the German Air Force is looking for a CSAR helicopter the options are CH 47, AW101, NH 90 and S-92.
The NH 90 is considered to be too small, if the Navy decides for the Cyclone I believe the S-92 would be acquired for the Air Force as well.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7810 times:

He is the guy to pull a plug,and that can be fast. Some say too fast, but I think that some changes are necessary.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7593 times:

Then continue with the likes of Kraus-Maffei

Jan


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7378 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
Kraus-Maffei

What about them ? (Even if off-topic/non aviation related)



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7093 times:

The CH-148 would be a good choice for both the German Navy and Air Force. I think the MH-90As, and MH-65Cs, now in USCG service are being replaced with the even smaller MH-68A, which may not be a good choice for Germany.

For the Luftwaffe, would the CH-47F be too big?


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7081 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The CH-148 would be a good choice for both the German Navy and Air Force. I think the MH-90As, and MH-65Cs, now in USCG service are being replaced with the even smaller MH-68A, which may not be a good choice for Germany.

For the Luftwaffe, would the CH-47F be too big?

The MH 68A is definitetely too small also I believe it only has one engine. The German Navy wants one aircraft to replace the Sea Lynx and Sea King.
The aircraft must be big enough to carry troops, be used for hunting submarines and as a SAR aircraft. It must be small enough to fit in the hangars on the fregattes as well. The choice is narrowed down between the CH 148 and the MH 90NG.

For the airforce a joint acquisition with the navy would make sense as there not so many CSAR helicopters needed, therefore I believe the S-92CSAR has the lead here as well.

The CH 47F is an option but I believe unlikely. It would be an oddball in the fleet and I don´t know if it would fit in an A400M. To carry them abroad AN 124 would be needed and there are not always available.
I remember Federal Police needed them to ship Super Pumas to the Indian Ocean for a rescue mission for a ship that has been taken over by Pirates. It took more than a week to fly them there since the Antonovs were not available.

(If it would be my decision the German AIr Force would be flying C17s for years now   )



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7081 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 3):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
Kraus-Maffei

What about them ? (Even if off-topic/non aviation related)

This refers to the Mungo light armoured vehicle. The Bundeswehr recognised very fast in Afghanistan that the standard Wolf 4X4 transport (military version of the Mercedes G series) didn´t provide enough prottection against ambushes and roadside bombs, so they started looking around for a suitable vehicle. They found one of American / Swiss production, which would be readily available and could be brought to the frontline on short notice (no such vehicle was available from German manufacturers back then). Now two parliamentarians (one from the CDU and other one from the SPD) received big donations from the German tank manufacturer Krauss-Maffei possibly to stall the procurement process for almost two years until Kraus-Maffei had a vehicle ready based on the chassis of the communal maintenance truck Multicar (you´ll see them often in the cities with snow clearing gear attached). So for two years German soldiers had to use unprotected vehicles (and possibly quite a few of them got wounded or killed due to lack of armour) to enable a German company to come up with an inferior solution sold to the Bundeswehr at a high price (the soldiers are complaining that the Mungo often breaks down and doesn´t have the offroad performance required in Afghanistan). The Spiegel had an article about it a few weeks ago.
BTW, the Bundeswehr also stopped buying 4x4 vehicles from Mercedes. Recently they bought a few hundred Nissan Patrol trucks instead of the overpriced Wolf trucks from Mercedes Benz.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/d/db/Mungo_gelaende.jpg
Mungo truck in Afghanistan

Jan

[Edited 2010-05-09 05:59:49]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7062 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 5):
The CH 47F is an option but I believe unlikely. It would be an oddball in the fleet and I don´t know if it would fit in an A400M. To carry them abroad AN 124 would be needed and there are not always available.
I remember Federal Police needed them to ship Super Pumas to the Indian Ocean for a rescue mission for a ship that has been taken over by Pirates. It took more than a week to fly them there since the Antonovs were not available.

(If it would be my decision the German AIr Force would be flying C17s for years now )

Does Germany have access to the SAC C-17s? I thought they did.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):
The Bundeswehr recognised very fast in Afghanistan that the standard Wolf 4X4 transport (military version of the Mercedes G series) didn´t provide enough prottection against ambushes and roadside bombs, so they started looking around for a suitable vehicle. They found one of American / Swiss production, which would be readily available and could be brought to the frontline on short notice (no such vehicle was available from German manufacturers back then). Now two parliamentarians (one from the CDU and other one from the SPD) received big donations from the German tank manufacturer Krauss-Maffei possibly to stall the procurement process for almost two years until Kraus-Maffei had a vehicle ready based on the chassis of the communal maintenance truck Multicar (you´ll see them often in the cities with snow clearing gear attached). So for two years German soldiers had to use unprotected vehicles (and possibly quite a few of them got wounded or killed due to lack of armour) to enable a German company to come up with an inferior solution sold to the Bundeswehr at a high price (the soldiers are complaining that the Mungo often breaks down and doesn´t have the offroad performance required in Afghanistan). The Spiegel had an article about it a few weeks ago.

this is unfortunately happen to Soilders from all of the Allied countries, politicians slowing up programs to protect local workers at a high cost to Soilders, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coasties.


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6860 times:

For the Luftwaffe, would the CH-47F be too big?[/quote]
The MH 68A is definitetely too small also I believe it only has one engine. The German Navy wants one aircraft to replace the Sea Lynx and Sea King.
Twin engine, actually, but yes it'd be too small. Is this just a political ploy to shake up the German defense industry, or an actual, credible threat?



Now you're really flying
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6761 times:

Hello all,

I want to go on record as being a huge fan of military hardware from everywhere... Despite the flag by my name (USA). I have lived overseas in several parts of the world... Southern Germany being one of my favorites... Oh... and by the way... I just finished dinner a few Hours ago with a good old freind.. one of the original LINDE's    ( for all my german freinds who regonize the name),

I believe that the best equipment should be provided to the troops no matter where it originates form (must be the ground pounder in me). "For All" those self proclaimed expert pilot.. engineer.. marketing../ a.netters who have never served in the armed forces .. I respect your opinions... But the Luftwaffe(HEER) has been flying heavy lift helicopters for many years (CH-53's) .... I think they know what works and probably don't need cheerleaders or politicians to help.

On a side note ... for all those must be NEW TECHNOLOGY to be Good/better A/C Guys??? How's that old 50 year old CH-47 looking in that high/hot afgan region looking now ... compared to the brand new high tech euro stuff?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3688 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6649 times:

I don't for one minute think this is just a German problem, It is widespread for a number of reasons, some of which include:

Politicians like to be seen to support indigenous manufacturers.
The procurement people don't like "off the shelf" purchases as there is little need for their involvement, you can make a career out of buying something new, where you issue vast specifications to the potential suppliers and take years, but it takes little time to ring say Boeing and ask for a quote for some new Chinooks to the latest mod standard.
The end users like to be able to add their own input, and demand those little (or not so little) extras which of course cause delays.

Then of course, after all this is sorted out and the manufacturers start work, then the end users decide that the threat scenario has changed, and modifications are necessary. You might expect that the manufacturers would object to this, but no, its all more work to be charged for a cost plus profit margin.

Meanwhile the soldier expecting to be transported by helicopter is walking instead, he and the taxpayer are the losers, all other parties are satisfied.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6499 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 10):
I don't for one minute think this is just a German problem, It is widespread for a number of reasons, some of which include:

Correct, most politicians are more interested in directing contracts to OEMs that support their own reelection campaigns. They just screw the Soldiers and tax payers.


User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6268 times:

While I certainly support a strong "home" military industrial base, I don't think Germany was at any time bad off with american equipment.

What I say is: Let the OEMs, whereever they sit, compete. The best product will be the outcome. Not an artificially hyped product with years of delays and cost overruns.

And if Germany can buy some of the shelf helos in the US that fits the needs, buy US. If Germany can buy in Europe an of the shelf helo which fits the needs, buy in Europe. Even better, if both have an of the shelf helo, make a price competition out of MY TAX PAYER MONEY!!! I certainly appreciate it.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6185 times:

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 12):
And if Germany can buy some of the shelf helos in the US that fits the needs, buy US. If Germany can buy in Europe an of the shelf helo which fits the needs, buy in Europe. Even better, if both have an of the shelf helo, make a price competition out of MY TAX PAYER MONEY!!! I certainly appreciate it.

              


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6169 times:

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 12):
I don't think Germany was at any time bad off with american equipment.

Agreed, the Bell UH 1D, CH 53 and Phantom are the backbone for almost 40 years now and served very well.
My idea would be, buy CH 53Ks to replace the CH 53G, while discussing with Sikorsky add some CH 148 and S-92 CSAR for the Navy and Air Force. For transport needs shorten the A400M order but add 10 C17s to the fleet to be more flexibel.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
nd if Germany can buy some of the shelf helos in the US that fits the needs, buy US. If Germany can buy in Europe an of the shelf helo which fits the needs, buy in Europe. Even better, if both have an of the shelf helo, make a price competition out of MY TAX PAYER MONEY!!! I certainly appreciate it.

But this has to apply for the US as well (Tanker decision)



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6107 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 14):
Agreed, the Bell UH 1D, CH 53 and Phantom are the backbone for almost 40 years now and served very well.
My idea would be, buy CH 53Ks to replace the CH 53G, while discussing with Sikorsky add some CH 148 and S-92 CSAR for the Navy and Air Force. For transport needs shorten the A400M order but add 10 C17s to the fleet to be more flexibel.

Yes, I am with you here. One thing I would like to argue about is the need for the C17. Not in support of A400M specifically, I am just wondering if our air force really has a recurring need for efficient use of such a large and capable airlift? I am not so sure, but could be wrong.

Quoting columba (Reply 14):
But this has to apply for the US as well (Tanker decision)

Definitely. But as our friend KC135 (and his american pals) don't even sees EADS/Airbus as a company striving for profit, I can imagine it to be hard for him to see a "fair" competition, but a subsidized monster stealing american jobs!   Am I right, KC?


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 15):
I am just wondering if our air force really has a recurring need for efficient use of such a large and capable airlift? I am not so sure, but could be wrong.

You can not solely rely on rented IL76s and An124 if you have to carry outsized cargo. The C17s would be good to send PzH2000s, CH 53s (or later HTHs) to Afganistan in a short period of time.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6040 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 16):
You can not solely rely on rented IL76s and An124 if you have to carry outsized cargo. The C17s would be good to send PzH2000s, CH 53s (or later HTHs) to Afganistan in a short period of time.

What about NATO C17 vor such purposes?


User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

In the UK our defense ministry has a bad reputation for messing procurement up massively. We had Chinooks that were built to such a specification they could not be used and sat in hangars for years. On the plus side we do have C-17s that have proven to be a great benefit. Such a pity the A400 is so late.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The End Of Eads Monopoly In Germany?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
End Of Manned U.S. Space Launches Now In Sight posted Mon Feb 15 2010 13:55:39 by dxing
The Beginning Of The End For The VC10 posted Tue Jan 19 2010 08:17:58 by Tonystan
Beginning Of The End For Ares? posted Tue Oct 28 2008 02:37:51 by Connies4ever
Germany: Withdrawal Of Eads Defense Contracts? posted Sun Feb 4 2007 11:24:46 by Columba
End Of The Line For The C-17? posted Fri Nov 4 2005 23:08:15 by Lumberton
End Of The Road For F-14 posted Fri Oct 21 2005 18:52:08 by Thumper3181
Canada's Snowbirds - End Of The Line? posted Fri Aug 26 2005 20:38:27 by Bmacleod
"In The Company Of Heroes" By Michael Durant posted Mon May 16 2005 20:12:31 by LY744
The Future Of Ktts? posted Mon Apr 26 2010 23:32:36 by kelpKID
Henry Allingham - End Of An Era posted Thu Jul 30 2009 16:21:12 by Kennyk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format