This thing is pretty mean looking. Check out the tailhook!
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...C Avenger Makes First Flights&channel=defense
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...C Avenger Makes First Flights&channel=defense
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Predator C Avenger
- Thread starter Mumbles
- Start date
Very interesting read, especially when it (briefly) addresses General Atomics' relatively unique business model:
"Cassidy has earned a unique reputation by using company funds to develop what he believes the military needs rather than chasing Pentagon requirements that shift with disheartening regularity to produce cost increases and production delays."
That's pretty unheard of these days - a company with sufficient IR&D money to go out on a limb and develop what they think is best, and then let the govt decide whether they want to buy it. High risk, for sure, but a business model I wish other big metal-benders would pursue. Maybe then we could get out of the vicious requirements-vs-cost 1-circle fight we've been in for years.
Re: the tailhook. Could it be that it is more designed to take the long-field gear and keep the plane from breaking itself in case of brake failure or landing long, than for carrier ops? HJ would probably know better than most if GA has been sniffing around the Navy world with this platform.
Isn't that the same thing that Boeing did several times? (B-17 comes to mind).
The problem with that was their production line suffered and apparently was a big factor in them losing the BAMS contract, when theirs may have been the better product. Even the Global Hawk were apparently surprised to win that one.
Well, there's lots of good reasons to put a tailhook on the thing, not just CV ops. There's soooooooo many hurdles to overcome before we try fixed-wing UAVs on the Boat (technically feasible, maybe, but even further from NAVAIR being comfortable with it). But field arrestments for emergencies, or short-field ops...sure.
I did find that interesting about GA's business model. That used to be how things were done in the Business - the A-4, for example, was the exact opposite of what the Navy asked for in the RFP.
I did find that interesting about GA's business model. That used to be how things were done in the Business - the A-4, for example, was the exact opposite of what the Navy asked for in the RFP.
I think the BAMS solicitation was among the lower points in recent technology procurements - and that is saying something, unfortunately. That a squared away company like GA did not win says volumes about the Navy's inability to define requirements, write a well-structured RFP, and then adjudicate different proposals. We suck, in short.
My personal opinion: Since the powers-that-be lacked significant vision into exactly what they wanted in a strategic UAV, they glommed onto the only version that existed at the time - Global Hawk. I was involved in some very early efforts associated with the requirements definition, and I left with a very bad taste in my mouth concerning the whole thing.
If I could have purchased stock in General Atomics, I would have done so a long time ago...
Well, the Clinton administration eviscerated DoD's career contracting officers. Now we can't get a program together to save our lives...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Is the solution to put them back?
I think it's certainly part of the solution; though since that all happened 15-ish years ago, I imagine not many are just standing around waiting to be rehired. I don't know how you rebuild the contracting officer cadre, but it needs to be done.
Bring back the Contracting Corps!
Whenever a program gets it right, you typically see the contracting officer mentioned upfront because their role is so cricial to getting the program to be on time, on schedule and on budget. It isn't that there aren't any contracting officers out there, it's just hard to find ones that can prevail against the sometimes bewildering array of Regulations and Instructions that govern how they must act to ensure there is fre and oepn competition, govt gets best value, contractor doesn't take advantage, etc., etc., etc. A really good one is weigh their weight in valuable substance of you choosing.
Note: There is a move afoot to move 20,000+ contractors over to govt and contracting officers are included. Watch that space!
Whenever a program gets it right, you typically see the contracting officer mentioned upfront because their role is so cricial to getting the program to be on time, on schedule and on budget. It isn't that there aren't any contracting officers out there, it's just hard to find ones that can prevail against the sometimes bewildering array of Regulations and Instructions that govern how they must act to ensure there is fre and oepn competition, govt gets best value, contractor doesn't take advantage, etc., etc., etc. A really good one is weigh their weight in valuable substance of you choosing.
Note: There is a move afoot to move 20,000+ contractors over to govt and contracting officers are included. Watch that space!
You don't hate UAV's.....you hate UAV pilots
JK...you will be thankful when a UAV precedes you to a heavily armed target area and eliminates/hurts the surface-to-air site that has your #.
A typo.
A badass aircraft that's next on my dream sheet!:icon_wink