Thanks for the link Jonathan.
You ever read a story that has you saying WHAT THE FUCK outloud? Check this out via Janes.
Whats going on that has everyone abandoning what I thought (and has presented) were solid alliances to pursue a program that is probably much smaller than even the USMC was contemplating? Certainly they could get the same type of support from their previous couplings.
So why this new partnership?
You ever read a story that has you saying WHAT THE FUCK outloud? Check this out via Janes.
BAE Systems and Finnish aerospace and defence group Patria are to jointly bid for the Australian Army's programme to procure a combat reconnaissance vehicle (CRV) platform.Ok. I admit right up front that I have no idea how the inner workings of the armored vehicle market work, but I would have expected Patria to tap Lockheed Martin on the shoulder and said lets go for this thing in Australia...and for BAE to do the same with Iveco.
A statement on 22 September said the two companies were offering to meet the requirement - part of Land 400 Phase 2 - with a platform based on Patria's 8x8 Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV). BAE Systems said it would act as prime contractor in the joint bid.
A spokesperson from BAE Systems Australia told IHS Jane's : "The tender for Land 400 is not expected for some time but together we aim to meet the requirement with an evolved solution." The spokesperson said other details of the joint CRV bid would be released later.
Whats going on that has everyone abandoning what I thought (and has presented) were solid alliances to pursue a program that is probably much smaller than even the USMC was contemplating? Certainly they could get the same type of support from their previous couplings.
So why this new partnership?
Maybe the former partnership was not that good... or just don't put all eggs in one basket.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is simple Lockheed's industrial footprint in Australia isn't nearly as large as BAE's so it makes sense for Patria to partner with them to help market their AMV vehicle to the Australian government.
ReplyDeleteBAE ,LM etc so called system integrators only serve to grease the wheels and in return get a big share of the profits ,PATRIA wouldn't need ither BAE or LM for anything else but their lobbying power.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the amount of actual engineering input these companies have is usually fairly minimal.
ReplyDeleteA good example of this is the last Marine One candidate the AW Merlin or as it was known to the US the Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel.
LMs input will have been next to non existent due to their almost complete lack of experience with helicopters outside of weird test articles. Most of the custom engineering work will have been handled either in house by AW or by Bell helicopters. All Lockheed did was put their name on it to Americanize a foreign product and make it more acceptable to the US government.
Another would be Northrop Grumman and EADS in the KC-X program.
Next to non existant experience on helicopters?
DeleteI give you the MH-60 and the UK Merlin Mk1/2.
They look like helicopters to me!
Look at the JLTV program history.
ReplyDeleteBAE, LM and several of the other contractors traded parterns like it was a square dance.
I want to say it was BAE that had a one point a Joint team of BAE/someone else, while also having a BAE pure team.
If You take a look at Land 400 CRV requirement and conops you will see that ADF is looking for something slightly different from MPC/ACV. The focus of CRV is Land based Close Combat in high intensity WAR scenario and is NOT amphibious. Add to this the CRV Land 400 contract award is expected by 2017-2018 for a MOTS vehicle (by 2018 ACV 1.1 will be just prototypes).
ReplyDelete