Hoon set for conflict over £3bn helicopter deals

[Heliport]

Independent Online Hoon set for conflict over £3bn helicopter deals

Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is heading for fresh controversy over his handling of the purchase of military equipment - this time concerning plans to spend £3bn on new helicopters.

The Ministry of Defence is considering offering the lion's share of contracts for replacing the armed forces' ageing Lynx, Puma and Gazelle fleets to AgustaWestland. The Italian-owned company employs more than 4,000 people in Yeovil, Somerset.

A final decision on how the £3bn budget will be spent over 10 years will be made in the summer. But officials are now assessing whether the Defence Industrial Policy - a joint initiative by the MoD and Department of Trade and Industry - will allow the Government to enter into exclusive talks with AgustaWestland on the grounds that it will safeguard UK jobs.

The news will anger Eurocopter, owned by the Franco-German defence group EADS, which has submitted its own helicopter proposals to the MoD.

Meanwhile, Sikorsky, the helicopter company owned by America's United Technologies, is also interested in bidding for contracts. Upsetting Sikorsky could have damaging knock-on effects for AgustaWestland. Last month it was part of a consortium that broke Sikorsky's stranglehold over the supply of the iconic US presidential helicopter fleet. The decision has yet to be ratified by Congress, and industry sources said that any exclusive deal between AgustaWestland and the MoD would be used as ammunition by Sikorsky to have the presidential deal thrown out.

Today's news may also anger the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. In 2003 he became embroiled in a row with Mr Hoon over the decision to award the UK defence company BAE Systems a contract to supply the RAF with the Hawk trainer jet, without considering rival bids.

An MoD spokesman said: "We need to balance economic, industrial and military factors when making the assessment. We expect to make an announcement on the final procurement strategy by the middle of the year."

[SpotterFC]

Ah the Hawk - couldn't allow a little thing like the factory being in your mates constituency get in the way could we?

Oops, sorry - Internal Monologue Caption

[Muff Coupling]

As Moses descended from the Mount with laws written in tablets of stone..you can bet FLynx will be ordered in stone. Tony cannot go to the polls with 4000 ish jobs under threat from the UK'sonly hel manufacturer..well I use the term UK very loosely of course.

Just remember..it was supposed to be £10bn over 10 years..that was the smoke and mirrors anouncement that Gordon made. So just what happened to the rest
:confused:

[PTT]

Probably because if we buy the thing which is best for the job it will not be British, which will damage the British economy, which will in turn damage the British capability to maintain what military capability we have even further. If we buy British made products then we keep British jobs, have more British people (and corporations) paying tax, which helps to pay for the maintenence of a British military capability, dwindling though it might be.

You just cannot afford to have a military if you don't have an effective economy - unforunately our economy is massively leeched upon by the welfare state.

And before I get jumped on too hard, I am one of the people operating the sub-standard kit we have today.

[hyd3failure]

We are buying 2 aircraft carriers which are not built by the British. The froggies are kindly building them for us.

And nobody could argue that Westlands was a British company...nope, thats got Iti written all over it.

The reason is simple....VOTES

[Jobza Guddun]

"Probably because if we buy the thing which is best for the job it will not be British, which will damage the British economy, which will in turn damage the British capability to maintain what military capability we have even further. "

True enough, but what about licence production of the right kit though? For example, the Japanese built their own F-4's and F-15s (the only country to do so), and numerous countries are building, or have built, the F-16. Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?

[Archimedes]

Hyd3,

I think Thales are designing CVF (or leading on it), but isn't the building to be done in the UK? In the constituency of one G.Brown MP?

[hyd3failure]

Oh there will be many, many sub contractors and no doubt lots of British Industries will benefit and its pleasing to see that Rosyth may well benefit - Rather them than Hapag-Lloyd !!!!!

But at the end of the day Thales are the prime contractors and they are French. Why not let BAe build the ships...

Oh, Yeah. Sorry forgot. BWoS were too busy. Order books too full for that week !!!!

[tucumseh]

"........what about licence production of the right kit though? Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?"


The only significant licensing arrangement I've had dealings with is Sea King, from Sikorsky. (Insisted on long ago, and paid for, by MoD. Politics). God, we suffered. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, but we were tied to expensive, long lead, spares. We were a minor user, so bottom of the food chain every time. Could never predict when spares would arrive, and to what standard - regardless of what contracts said. Cost a fortune, and eventually we bought it out (cheaply, as luck would have it).

In my experience, the real problem with buying from abroad is the procurer (usually DPA in the first instance) seldom learns from experience to set up UK based support facilities in advance. Time and again that has been the solution to support problems. In avionics especially, by all means buy abroad but never, never, agree to anything being supported abroad. Your turn round times go out the window. Never mind the prime equipment, the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian. Works every time. (Ask your typical MoD PM to explain that one. Most wouldn't know what it means). That's why a little company in Gateshead called Joyce Loebl are so highly thought of. They specialise in supporting US-built kit for us, faster, better, more cheaply. (Heard that slogan somewhere before). Never once let me down in nearly 30 years. Neither have Westlands actually.

We used to have to submit a "Crown Eagle" to explain why we were not recommending French companies in the tender list. I once wrote "Because the only one who could possibly do it is crap, and WILL let us down". Produced historical evidence, and the contract went to the UK company I recommended, who delivered on time. As a result, RN SK6s actually flew for most of the 90s. (You'll never know how close you were to not!). The source of the problem? A single component bought from the US. The company (Westinghouse) pulled the plug with no warning. Low volume, didn't want to know. The UK company did the business - and gained much more because of their ingenuity.

Yes, I agree there are UK companies with poor track records, but MoD PMs used to have the authority to deal with them. That is, don't give them contracts if they let you down more than once. (That doesn't mean to say Joe Bloggs' with 20 factories is blacklisted because one factory didn't deliver - just that one factory, or perhaps that one product range. More often than not they'd ask what we thought they could do to improve, they'd implement change, and it's back on the list). Upset industry nowadays and it's disciplinary action. I'd say most companies deliver what is specified and what we are prepared to pay for. If you specify low, and don't have money - well that's not entirely their fault.

[pr00ne]

Hyd3failure,

It is a Thales (UK) design that has been chosen as CVF, designed in the UK. It will now be engineered and developed by a BAES/Thales consortium with integration of the entire project by KBR, who are a US firm.
I think that makes it about as British as you can get!

Jobzaguddun,

What about licence production? Been done, in the sixties, when a whole raft of indigenous (and mainly impractical and ill-conceived) aircraft projects were cancelled we had the Sea King licence built by Westland, well over 50% of the F-4K/M Phantom was built in the UK in addition to the RR engines.
Prior to that the Wessex was a licence built S-58, the Whirlwind was a licence built S-55, the Sioux was a licence built Bell 47, so Westland have quite a history here, as too do their new Italian owners who licence built Bell 47’s Sea Kings, Chinooks, Bell 204/205’s Bell 212’s et al.

Tucumseh,

“the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian.”

Sorry, but that may have worked in the era of the C-130K but in the age of the C-130J it is absolutely impossible. NO OEM will release software source codes, LMAS will not even give them to the US military so UK MOD can go whistle. This is what is a real worry over F-35 and is taking up so much time to try and negotiate at very senior political level, and that’s as a Tier 1 design partner!

If you buy from overseas you are stuck as any OEM will earn ten times the amount from through life support as they will from the original sale of the kit.

[hyd3failure]

OK,OK....maybe Thales is a UK company...but if it is then why is it called Talis and not Thales..?????

I have to disagree on your point ref "NO OEM will release software source codes". This happens all the time.

...i.e. lets say you want to build a simulator. you get a simulator company to build it BUT they need the source codes and they get them from the OEM. It's gonna cost ya.... in fact its gonna cost ya big time BUT it can happen. The OEM will quite easily and freely sell the source codes as long as they retain the IPR. There are plenty of other examples of source code being available.

[BossEyed]

OK,OK....maybe Thales is a UK company...but if it is then why is it called Talis and not Thales..?????

Because that's how the name is pronounced in Asia Minor (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Thales.html) :D

Thales Group Press Release (http://www.thalesgroup.com/press/press_releases/?pageID=&CON_TEXTE=&keysel=CON_TITRE&DEB_ANNEE=2000&key=&LAN_ID=1&y=8&x=9&CON_TITRE=&TOPIC=&index=3)

[Toxteth O'Grady]

BUT they need the source codes

No they don't!

Go study the difference between source and executable code, stimulation vs. emulation, porting and platform re-hosting. Oh and while you're at it take a look at ARINC 610.

:cool:

TOG

[pr00ne]

Hyd3failure,

Sorry, but IPR is what counts here, you try getting the source codes for the C-130J out of LMAS, or for that matter the many other avionic OEM's who supply black boxes to aircraft like the J, this is where DARA came unstuck when they tried to get Sealand set up as a centre of excellence for avionic overhaul.

As to simulation, in the case of the J LMAS subcontracted Reflectone to provide the simulation service, MOD didn't get a look in.

[hyd3failure]

well I'm sorry to disappoint you all but I have experience of retrieving source codes from OEM and it is possible. I know for a fact that both Thales and Wastelands will release source codes..... at a price. (at a big price)


Of course they will. All defence companies (nay all companies) are out to make money and if they have a product that someone wants to purchase they will sell it.

[tucumseh]

prOOne

In saying secondary masters, I was really referring to hardware. Wouldn't use the term wrt software. However, I have experience managing, for example, Litton 211 Omega, for which Ferranti (Edinburgh) wrote the software updates every 2 years for changes in the geomagnetic field. (On BBC Bs!). In time, Litton became agitated at their lack of foresight, and asked for the (big) total support contract back. Demanded, actually. Refused, on the grounds they had no UK facility at the time and had shown no committment to supporting our (RAF's) software configuration, which many years past had, by necessity, gone off at a tangent to the US's. The benefit of having a design custodian. But your point is well made as more and more companies are getting wise to the money they can make from UK MoD.

[pr00ne]

HYd3Failure,

Of course all defence companies are out to make money, and that is precisely WHY they will not release source codes for new equipment. It is worth far far more to them to support in service kit than it is to sell it in the first place!
Of course there will be exceptions, as there are to all rules, but as a general point they are locked in stone with the OEM's.

[hyd3failure]

Well, maybe we are going to have to differ here but I have been heavily involved in 2 major contracts with the MOD and industry. One with WHL and the other with Thales and with both contracts the company SOLD the source code to another company (AMS).

[Fanstop]

Hydro3failure

Thales as awhole are a french company. However they have 3 or 4 sites dotted around the UK, the largest and main one being in Glasgow. This was once Barr & Stroud of periscope fame before it was bought over in the early 90's.

Doesn't detract though from the fact that it is a French owned company now.