Cost effective defence

[Letsby Avenue]

Thought you might like to have a look at this...

http://eureferendum2.********.com/2006/11/cost-effective-defence.html

Discuss.

[movadinkampa747]

Go on then. How about you precis the document and give us your thoughts.

[Two's in]

Or you might just save yourself the time and not bother. The original article is by Lewis Page, who's opinions were articulated in "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" which was also extensively commented upon here. But this link is to a blog called EU Referendum, which is an anti-EU hobby horse of many, but led by Dr. Richard North and Len Szamuely. So an opinionated ex-matelot is being quoted and critiqued by a Brussels hater - hardly objective is it? I think most threads on here are far less removed from the facts than these self elected experts seem to be.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I love it when people like Lewis Page solve all of the Armed Forces financial problems with the ever-so-simple 'cut back on Typhoon'.

So leaving aside the fact that the contract to provide Typhoon for the RAF is so water-tight that it'd actually be more cost-effective to just receive the a/c and leave them unused, such are the financial penalties for pulling out, what does Mr Page in all his wisdom believe will replace the F3 and more importantly, the Jaguar when spares/hours start to run out?

The guy is an arrse.:ugh:

[NoseGunner]

To summarise, the book review says:
He suggests RAF cuts, fine
He suggests RN cuts, fine
He suggests Army cuts, he doesnt know what he is talking about!

The last paragraph says it all:

All of this makes for an extraordinarily shallow paper, which offers nothing that can be treated as a serious contribution to defence strategy. Nevertheless, up front, I did commend the Economic Research Council for publishing the paper – as a contribution to the debate - and stand by that. I wish, though, the Council had been a little more aggressive in testing the arguments of its author before going public.

[EU Referendum]

Or you might just save yourself the time and not bother. The original article is by Lewis Page, who's opinions were articulated in "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" which was also extensively commented upon here. But this link is to a blog called EU Referendum, which is an anti-EU hobby horse of many, but led by Dr. Richard North and Len Szamuely. So an opinionated ex-matelot is being quoted and critiqued by a Brussels hater - hardly objective is it? I think most threads on here are far less removed from the facts than these self elected experts seem to be.

It is Dr HELEN Szamuely and neither of us "hate" Brussels as such - why should we? What we want is the right to run our own country. Is that wrong and does that disqualify us from commenting on subjects like defence?

As for Lewis Page, his paper covers different territory from his book - hence our review of it. Of course it is not "objective" - it is highly opinionated. How would you have a debate otherwise? Would you suggest that we start with a consensus?

Page's paper actually runs to 40 pages. We cannot critique it all in one review. But we are very far from sure that the blue water fleet should be cut, and while I personally would not have chosen the Eurofighter, now the thing is up and running, we might as well make the best of it.

Where I have been following developments most closely though is in counterinsurgency techniques and make my most detailed comments there.

Here, I am convinced of the role and utility of UCAVs (but do we have the bandwidth for extensive deployment?), I don't believe we have anything like enough light helicopters (of the ARH variety) and I don't believe we have given anything like enough thought to anti-IED strategies and force protection.

Further, I am extremely dubious about implementing FRES - on current knowledge I see it as a £14 billion white elephant.

Overall, though, the most important thing here is that we do have a debate. Not least, the Defence Committee is about to run an inquiry on FRES and it strikes me that the implications are so huge for the whole of the defence budget and defence strategy that there should be very much wider discussion.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

My own view of Lewis Page is that he does a very good impersonation of an embittered, self publicising, money seeking and blinkered intellectual pygmy. After 11 years service and 2 rings round his sleeve, he is a military expert and strategic genius. He sells books and magazine articles for money and fair play to him for that.

He seems opposed to warships "in depth" that can extend presence across our world interests, combat aircraft that can do anything more than CAS and ships with a realistic ASW capability. He looks at the Cold War period and compares it to the tribal firefights we now get involved in. His "vision" is totally reliant upon allies and dependable foreign trading partners and a Britain that would probably not deserve a permanent seat on UN Security Council. He seems blind to the increase in High Seas piracy, contraband running, conflicts over diminishing resources and emerging giants like China and a newly confident Russia. The length of time it takes between writing a SOR and receiving the eventual kit for service, interspersed with Treasury hindrance, seems a complete mystery to him. We all buy cars and washing machines so what's difficult about that.

It worries me that someone with his flare for presentation and sensationalism should be considered seriously by experts. He is worthy of a place in the Cabinet Office, though.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I agree with this view of Page. On the topic of warships, he claims the Type 23 is a waste of money, purely ASW and unable to do other roles. Perhaps he never saw the things forward of the Superstructure - 4.5" gun, VL Sea Wolf, Harpoon, what be they?

Maybe this level of ignorance partly explains why he never got that half ring?

[tucumseh]

Well, I sat and read the actual report and I must say I quite enjoyed it. I now know why he didn’t get his half ring – anyone who suggests any kind of savings in MoD risks his career, so this guy committed professional suicide.

Yes, it is shallow, but I think the intention is to stimulate debate, not solve the Defence problem at a stroke. I wonder at his sources. On one project, he twice demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of its purpose, once in the narrative and then contradicts himself in the Glossary (and is wrong both times) yet has remarkably up to date costs which very few are aware of, or the reasons why the figures changed (reduced) so drastically, so recently. In other places, his information seems to be 5 years old.

I think he makes some excellent points, many reflected widely on Pprune. Cost effectiveness of Argus. MASC. The years wasted on RW programmes, only for them to be consolidated into FRC, with consequent delays and procrastination. Apache procurement strategy. UK being a minor player in defence procurement compared to US, yet we aspire to keep up and achieve little while wasting much.

I don’t agree with all he says, but when did a single person know it all about defence? If he did, we could make redundant the MoD from Brigadier upwards, including the entire DPA and DLO XBs, and Politicians. Not a bad idea that. At least if Mr Page were in charge timely decisions would be made. Some right, some wrong; so no change there then!

[Dockers]

Perhaps Golf Bravo Zulu and tucumseh have encapulated the argument? The primary problem with the entity that is the the MoD is that it is large, unwieldy and therefore, like a supertanker, difficult to change direction in a hurry - especially if the course is into different waters than that planned for. In my humble opinion, whenever cuts are needed it would be more effective to prune the upper levels first than the lower ones!

[bad livin']

WEBF, the 23 is a comfortable ship to serve in but a pig to handle. In addition, with the bulk of the weapons systems onboard carried in VERY close proximity to one another it's interesting to think what your survivability would be after one decent impact forward of the bridge screen.

The new sonar kit is indeed impressive but compared to a 42, it's a Skoda.

[EU Referendum]

Perhaps Golf Bravo Zulu and tucumseh have encapulated the argument? The primary problem with the entity that is the the MoD is that it is large, unwieldy and therefore, like a supertanker, difficult to change direction in a hurry - especially if the course is into different waters than that planned for. In my humble opinion, whenever cuts are needed it would be more effective to prune the upper levels first than the lower ones!

I genuinely wish that was the problem - but you have organisations that are bigger yet which are flexible and responsive... Tesco for instance. Something of the failure of the MoD must surely be its inability to listen to its "customers" but one wonders also whether its customers are sufficiently articulate (or even know what they want). Do we need a Percy Hobart?

[tucumseh]

EU Referendum

With all due respect, Tesco’s primary aims for the foreseeable future are known – sell loadsa grub, make loadsa profit, and keep on expanding. Whereas the MoD’s are infinitely variable at a moments notice and are non profit making. And our Armed Forces are definitely not expanding, although their roles are. Tesco’s investment matches their aspirations, MoD’s doesn’t.

To get back to Mr Page’s point – cost effectiveness. A major part of this is avoiding waste. If there is no political will or leadership within MoD – and demonstrably there is not in this respect – then you’ll never get past first base. Management sets the tone.

[EU Referendum]

EU Referendum

With all due respect, Tesco’s primary aims for the foreseeable future are known – sell loadsa grub, make loadsa profit, and keep on expanding. Whereas the MoD’s are infinitely variable at a moments notice and are non profit making. And our Armed Forces are definitely not expanding, although their roles are. Tesco’s investment matches their aspirations, MoD’s doesn’t.

To get back to Mr Page’s point – cost effectiveness. A major part of this is avoiding waste. If there is no political will or leadership within MoD – and demonstrably there is not in this respect – then you’ll never get past first base. Management sets the tone.

Yes, accept that - which sort of makes the point. It isn't size per se. Lack of political will and leadership ... yes, would agree. I might also suggest lack of informed scrutiny - from Parliament and the media. Theoretically, either or (preferably) both could keep MoD on its toes but this doesn't appear to work any more. Did it ever? And if it did, how does one restore the mechanism?

[tucumseh]

"Informed scrutiny" is mandatory for all MoD expenditure. It is not practiced. This has been formally condoned at ministerial level, in that, despite repeated warnings from various auditors, they refuse to enforce the rules.

Again, management sets the tone.

[movadinkampa747]

Ah but does the economic scrutiny by Parliament and the media dine below the derivative? Whilst in the MOD the refined potential ices the unpleasant phrase, every misguided asset escapes near an ended escapade. So you see, the spectrum of Armed Forces costs treks without the elected examiner.

[Tourist]

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

[Almost_done]

Ah but does the economic scrutiny by Parliament and the media dine below the derivative? Whilst in the MOD the refined potential ices the unpleasant phrase, every misguided asset escapes near an ended escapade. So you see, the spectrum of Armed Forces costs treks without the elected examiner.

Mova :D Newspeak at its best, you don't do speech writing for dear Tone do you?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I sometimes suspect that, perhaps, movadinkampa747 is a gifted scientist who's developing a novel and advanced form of artificial intelligence. This seems to be in the form of a text generator that can provide apposite comments and opinions on particular discussion points that have been in-put. I would imagine that he is currently ironing out the use of English and sentence construction algorithms. It will be interesting to see the finished product.

DISCLAIMER

Any adverts appearing against this Post are nothing to do with me.

GBZ

[NURSE]

there is a huge need to balance the UKDF with the missions envisaged and equipment issued. but it shouldn't be done on the current shoe string. If we are having small numbers of expensive assets we need the support infrastructure there along with full support to acheive availability of 75-90% at all times.

[EU Referendum]

there is a huge need to balance the UKDF with the missions envisaged and equipment issued. but it shouldn't be done on the current shoe string. If we are having small numbers of expensive assets we need the support infrastructure there along with full support to acheive availability of 75-90% at all times.

This surely cannot be just an issue of the amount of money, but also the way it is spent. For instance, when you look at the Future Lynx programme slated at just over £1 billion, average airframe cost is £14.2 million. Yet the Lynx is multi-role.

Would it not be better value to buy a commercial airframe for the ARH and LUH roles, as the Americans and some European forces have done, with an ARH costing less that £4 million and an LUH at around £3 million?

Similarly, in the "target department", I struggle to find a justification for the Pinzgauer Vector at £487,000 each to buy a very lightly armoured patrol vehicle, when about £270,000 buys you a vastly much better protected RG-31 (or ADI Bushmaster or even Dingo II if you prefer) which, as the Canadians have already demonstrated, saves lives.

Likewise, how does one justify the £1 billion total cost for each Type 45 destroyer which, in overall terms, are considerably less capable than the Aegis destroyers that the Australians are building for £600 million per copy.

How do we justify Storm Shadow for just over a million each, when JASSM is about £227,000 each... And so on.

Page is right in one respect - in my view. It would not be a terribly good idea to give the MoD more money until they have learned how to spend the money they have.

[BluntedAtBirth]

Page is right in one respect - in my view. It would not be a terribly good idea to give the MoD more money until they have learned how to spend the money they have.

All these programmes were brought to you by the letters WHL and BAES, and a lot of the number 0...

[Sunk at Narvik]

EU

"Likewise, how does one justify the £1 billion total cost for each Type 45 destroyer which, in overall terms, are considerably less capable than the Aegis destroyers that the Australians are building for £600 million per copy"

Thats a good question which deserves an answer:

The AB derived Aussie destroyers are essentialy a US design thats 30 years old. The Aussies are going down this route because they do not have an indigenous shipbuilding industry capable of designing and building warships of this complexity. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with a 30 year old ship design, but this was their only option.

The UK has a mature, although declining ship building industry still capable of complex warship design and builds- just about. The Govt has rightly in my view, decided its in our national interests to retain a core shipbuilding capability- as outlined in the recent Defence Industrial Strategy. This will enable us to continue to design and build complex warships without outside help and external dependencies- the national sovereignty argument.

As you are no doubt aware, purchasing complex weaponry from foreign suppliers gives that supplier a unique insight into the purchasers capabilities and the opportunity to influence the weapons use in wartime- via training packages and spares/maintenance contracts. Look at Irans old US supplied inventory for an example- their air force was grounded after the 79 revolution.

Why should the UK open ourselves to foreign influence in this way while we still have an indigenous capability?

Clearly the one argument is cost. Its true that the US has built something like fifty AB class destroyers and the unit costs are therefore a lot lower than our T45's- of which we are likely to get six. However, the DIS reveals that 50% of T45 cost is the "PAAMs" air warfare system of sensors and missiles. This is really top of the range world beating kit- far better than the 30 year old Aegis derived system the Aussies are buying.

Radar was a British invention- and we are still world leaders in this vital area. To retain that lead and the skills to support it we need to invest in UK designed equipment. If we shop abroad for cheaper, older kit, our own skills will decline and vanish. We will then be in the position of bargaining for crumbs off America's table- is this really where we want to be?

In summary then I believe there are compelling arguments for continuing to support hi-tech advanced equipment from UK suppliers.

However, I do have a lot of sympathy for your points around trucks and helicopters where we could buy from a competitive market.

cheers

[Lazer-Hound]

EU

"Likewise, how does one justify the £1 billion total cost for each Type 45 destroyer which, in overall terms, are considerably less capable than the Aegis destroyers that the Australians are building for £600 million per copy"

Thats a good question which deserves an answer:

The AB derived Aussie destroyers are essentialy a US design thats 30 years old. The Aussies are going down this route because they do not have an indigenous shipbuilding industry capable of designing and building warships of this complexity. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with a 30 year old ship design, but this was their only option.

The UK has a mature, although declining ship building industry still capable of complex warship design and builds- just about. The Govt has rightly in my view, decided its in our national interests to retain a core shipbuilding capability- as outlined in the recent Defence Industrial Strategy. This will enable us to continue to design and build complex warships without outside help and external dependencies- the national sovereignty argument.

As you are no doubt aware, purchasing complex weaponry from foreign suppliers gives that supplier a unique insight into the purchasers capabilities and the opportunity to influence the weapons use in wartime- via training packages and spares/maintenance contracts. Look at Irans old US supplied inventory for an example- their air force was grounded after the 79 revolution.

Why should the UK open ourselves to foreign influence in this way while we still have an indigenous capability?

Clearly the one argument is cost. Its true that the US has built something like fifty AB class destroyers and the unit costs are therefore a lot lower than our T45's- of which we are likely to get six. However, the DIS reveals that 50% of T45 cost is the "PAAMs" air warfare system of sensors and missiles. This is really top of the range world beating kit- far better than the 30 year old Aegis derived system the Aussies are buying.

Radar was a British invention- and we are still world leaders in this vital area. To retain that lead and the skills to support it we need to invest in UK designed equipment. If we shop abroad for cheaper, older kit, our own skills will decline and vanish. We will then be in the position of bargaining for crumbs off America's table- is this really where we want to be?

In summary then I believe there are compelling arguments for continuing to support hi-tech advanced equipment from UK suppliers.

However, I do have a lot of sympathy for your points around trucks and helicopters where we could buy from a competitive market.

cheers

A few points. The Arleigh Burke itself only entered service in 1991 and so the design can't date back further than the mid 1980's, so 20 years old not 30. Certainly outside the limited area of low-level area air defence the Flight 2A Burkes are far superior all-round warships compared to the T45's, in terms of ASW, Strike and surface warfare, and even MCM. The Australians are getting much better VFM than they would with a T45.

In the air defence arena, you state PAAMS is much better than the '30 year old Aegis'. Aegis has been continually updated and now features an ABM capability PAAMS is years or decades (and a lot of money) away from having. Furthermore nobody is denying that Aegis/SM2/3 can actually do the job required effectively. You also cite PAAMS as somehow evidencing the UK's 'world beating' technology. Which will be news to the Frenchmen who design and build most of it. Over 50% by value of the T45 is actually sourced overseas - see Richard Beedall's site for details. In addition, the T45 hullform itself already looks pretty dated compared to the Zumwalts and both LCS designs.

If you're interested there's a Rumration debate on T45 here:

http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=2249.html

[EU Referendum]

All these programmes were brought to you by the letters WHL and BAES, and a lot of the number 0...

Pinzgauer = Armor Holdings. Storm Shadow = MBDA... only 37 percent BAE Systems... All projects - 100% MoD.

[Sunk at Narvik]

Lazer,

Aegis dates back to the Tico class cruisers of 1970's vintage. The AB's were a cheaper version.

I don't doubt Aegis has been upgraded, but which version will the USA let the Aussies have? The stripped out "export" version now on sale to Norway and Spain?

The heart of PAAM's is the Sampson radar- a UK design and built piece of kit.

The Zumwelts are a semi submerged submarine design which has dreadful stability problems- not a surface warship. Ok, thats harsh but I know which ship I'd rather be on in a heavy sea (-:

The core of the post is the need to retain and enhance a UK capability to design and build complex weapons systems. We can argue tech specs but the essential point is that the UK is up there with the competition and not buying old last generation equipment from whoever will sell it to us. Are we a top league power or an also ran?

[Lazer-Hound]

Lazer,

Aegis dates back to the Tico class cruisers of 1970's vintage. The AB's were a cheaper version.

I don't doubt Aegis has been upgraded, but which version will the USA let the Aussies have? The stripped out "export" version now on sale to Norway and Spain?

The heart of PAAM's is the Sampson radar- a UK design and built piece of kit.

The Zumwelts are a semi submerged submarine design which has dreadful stability problems- not a surface warship. Ok, thats harsh but I know which ship I'd rather be on in a heavy sea (-:

The core of the post is the need to retain and enhance a UK capability to design and build complex weapons systems. We can argue tech specs but the essential point is that the UK is up there with the competition and not buying old last generation equipment from whoever will sell it to us. Are we a top league power or an also ran?

Well you seem to be saying that we pay a premium to retain sovereign capabilty in these areas. Which is all fine and dandy and many will agree that we should do that. But why do we chose to do this with warhips and systems (in which there's still a fair amount of international competition), but not in our ultimate line of defence i.e. Trident?

Burkes were a completely different design to the Ticos, which were themselves based on the Spruance class hull.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

WEBF, the 23 is a comfortable ship to serve in but a pig to handle. In addition, with the bulk of the weapons systems onboard carried in VERY close proximity to one another it's interesting to think what your survivability would be after one decent impact forward of the bridge screen.

The new sonar kit is indeed impressive but compared to a 42, it's a Skoda.
I think the real trick is not getting hit, so you might be better of with a T23. Lots of Sea Wolf missiles, small RCS (making the enemy's job harder and the decoy's easier), quiet (making life harder for passive sonar and acoustic torpedos/mines) etc etc etc.

However, Page has argued for all frigates and destroyers to be axed - fool.

Anyway, back to the main topic on this thread..

[bad livin']

Thanks WEBF, I'm fairly comfortable with what the T23 can and can't do...

What did you eventually join as?

[Sunk at Narvik]

Lazer,

Yep- there will always be a unit cost premium compared to the USA, but in some areas I believe thats worth paying. Cost is a factor, but not always the factor.

Take the Astutes. Years of run down resulted in skills evaporating, hence long delays and cost over runs- only resolved with help from the Yanks. Its a good thing we were on speaking terms this decade. Or look at the Bay class LPD's- shipbuilding skills left to rot so Swans didn't even have the know how to purchase the right design from the Dutch. The ships are now being rebuilt at BAE and Swans are up for sale.

As for Trident- yep thats a fair point. I'd much prefer a UK solution or even cooperation with the French :sad: but at least this would give the UK a major say in development and control of the project- with an ally with very similar needs. Don't take this as being anti American, I'm not, however we have to recognise that the US will always put its priorities first (who can blame them) and due to quants, the UK will only ever be a very minor "partner" with limited influence- look at the shennanigans over Dave :uhoh:

In short- buy from the open market as EU advocates for off the shelf low tech equipment, but vital hi tech stuff such as high value ships, nuclear deterents, strike aircraft, dev ourselves or pick more suitable partners.

[engineer(retard)]

"This surely cannot be just an issue of the amount of money, but also the way it is spent. For instance, when you look at the Future Lynx programme slated at just over £1 billion, average airframe cost is £14.2 million. Yet the Lynx is multi-role.

Would it not be better value to buy a commercial airframe for the ARH and LUH roles, as the Americans and some European forces have done, with an ARH costing less that £4 million and an LUH at around £3 million?"

EUR

Last time I looked the Tiger was about $36m USD and carries no pax, so disqualified. The UH 145 has no sensors or DAS in its baseline, again does not meet the requirement. i suspect an EO and radr on the 145 would prevent take-off.

To make a fair comparison you have to compare apples with apples.

regards

retard

[movadinkampa747]

It is strange that you should mention the Lynx program because the future Lynx programme breeds Cost effective defence around the mundane halls of MOD and the Treasury.
Can the Future Lynx programme, caution the boredom behind the contracted significance, that the simple matrix strains past Cost effective defence?:confused:.......... You tell me as I don't know the answer.

[EU Referendum]

Last time I looked the Tiger was about $36m USD and carries no pax, so disqualified. The UH 145 has no sensors or DAS in its baseline, again does not meet the requirement. i suspect an EO and radr on the 145 would prevent take-off.
To make a fair comparison you have to compare apples with apples.
regards
retard

What is wrong with this?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/PUB_ARH_Capabilities_lg.jpg

The US seems to be able to manage with a light ARH currently slated at about $6 million. What is it about the MoD/Army that it has no room in its inventory for such a machine?

Looking at the Future Lynx and other systems - including the Type 45 - would it not be better to have slightly less capable equipment, and more of it, rather than going for things with all the "bells and whistles" which end up being so expensive that we cannot afford (enough of) them?

[BossEyed]

It is strange that you should mention the Lynx program because the future Lynx programme breeds Cost effective defence around the mundane halls of MOD and the Treasury.
Can the Future Lynx programme, caution the boredom behind the contracted significance, that the simple matrix strains past Cost effective defence?:confused:.......... You tell me as I don't know the answer.

I've read that a number of times now.

I recognise each individual word as being English, but what language is the paragraph written in?

[engineer(retard)]

EUR

Which platform are you referring to for $6m? If it is UH 145 then I suspect that the US will add their own DAS at a cost above the basic platform. This may cover the utility role. However, it will still lack the recce and comms facilites that you require to cover the remainder of the role. If we assume you use the same basic platform then add the sensors you are likely to find the cost of this 2nd platform is beginning to approach the Lynx cost. Combined, I guess they would exceed the Lynx cost. You could argue that you now have 2 platforms for a cheaper aggregrate cost but you have also doubled your logistics footprint. Extra air and groundcrew etc, these are taken account of in a whole capability cost.

The situation gets worse in the RN case, do you buy another ship for your extra aircraft.

You would have to look at the COEIA to get the answer, and for Lynx this was done to death to reduce cost.

regards

retard

[EU Referendum]

EUR
Which platform are you referring to for $6m? If it is UH 145 then I suspect that the US will add their own DAS at a cost above the basic platform. This may cover the utility role. However, it will still lack the recce and comms facilites that you require to cover the remainder of the role. If we assume you use the same basic platform then add the sensors you are likely to find the cost of this 2nd platform is beginning to approach the Lynx cost. Combined, I guess they would exceed the Lynx cost. You could argue that you now have 2 platforms for a cheaper aggregrate cost but you have also doubled your logistics footprint. Extra air and groundcrew etc, these are taken account of in a whole capability cost.
The situation gets worse in the RN case, do you buy another ship for your extra aircraft.
You would have to look at the COEIA to get the answer, and for Lynx this was done to death to reduce cost.
regards
retard

See here:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/comanches-child-the-arh70-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-updated/index.php#more

This is the Bell ARH-70 based on the Bell 407. As far as I understand it from DID, the all-up cost of $6 million includes all the equipment specced. This is a fully equipped attack reconnaissance helicopter, very substantially cheaper than the Future Lynx.

The UH145 machine is simply a light utility.

The point about both these machines is that they are based on high-volume commercial airframes. Spares are more easily available and cheaper, and it is easier to get maintenance support. With a mature design, reliability is high and since the Yanks also have them (and we are working alongside them) we can tap into their logistics and support system.

It would take a true genius, on that basis, to increase a <£3million all-up cost to £14.2 million although, on current form, I am sure the MoD could manage it.

And frankly, I think it is possible to get too worked up about logistic footprints. There was a time when the AAC was running Scouts, Gazzles and Lynxes simultaneously.

[engineer(retard)]

EUR

There was a time when we had a shedload of aircraft carriers but we cannot afford them. Similarly, a large logistic footprint for large numbers of aircraft is expensive because it requires not only the air and groundcrew but also the training infrastructure, accommodation, transport, guards, cooks, camp whores and bottle washers to prop up the system. Along with a transport systems to deploy them. This is all part of the Cost of Ownership. Typically, the procurement cost of a system is less than half the cost of ownership.

Looking at your link, buying 362 also has a significant impact on unit cost. I wonder what the unit cost is for 40? But at $3bn my fingers and toes make that over $8m a copy. That seems more real to me, I have priced up some of the avionics that they are fitting and the recurring cost is in the order of $1.5m for the numbers of systems the UK is buying. NRC per unit across the US buy would be a very small percentage.

Looking at the specs, it does not meet UK military requirements for hot and high operation. There is no mention of an armoured floor and there are issues they will need to resolve with their DAS which will crank the cost up.

I think the argument centres around the required capability and available budget. Which still means you have to look at the COEIA to understand whether your argument stacks up.

regards

retard

[EU Referendum]

Looking at your link, buying 362 also has a significant impact on unit cost. I wonder what the unit cost is for 40? But at $3bn my fingers and toes make that over $8m a copy. That seems more real to me, I have priced up some of the avionics that they are fitting and the recurring cost is in the order of $1.5m for the numbers of systems the UK is buying. NRC per unit across the US buy would be a very small percentage.
Looking at the specs, it does not meet UK military requirements for hot and high operation. There is no mention of an armoured floor and there are issues they will need to resolve with their DAS which will crank the cost up.
I think the argument centres around the required capability and available budget. Which still means you have to look at the COEIA to understand whether your argument stacks up.
regards
retard

If we can get over the two dominent complexes - our inherent superiority complex (i.e., we are sooooo much better than the Yanks and must adapt everything we buy from them) the "bells and whistles" complex and the "not invented here" complex (make that three) - we could invoke the US military aid programme and thus tap into the US procurement order, benefitting from the same unit price as paid by the US armed forces. That is exactly what we did with the Cougar/Mastiff programme, with the added benefit of not having to go to the end of the queue.

As to floor armour, I suspect that this is included in the military version. But what does a sheet of Kevlar matting cost?

The same goes for DAS - it always strikes as somehat odd that we are quite happy to send large numbers of brown jobs (in sexy sandy uniforms) out in unprotected Land Rovers and other distinctly vulnerable ground-hugging beasties yet the moment they go up in an aerial Land Rover they must have every protective bell and whistle known to man and womenkind. (This from a force, incidentally, that was quite happy to fly Skeeters in Aden - one of several helicopters that needed an extended take-off run to get airborne, a sort of horizontal-vertical take-off.)

But, as Viscount Brookeborough pointed out - from experience of eagle patrols in NI (see: http://eureferendum.********.com/2006/06/great-debate.html ) - the best DAS for a helicopter is another helicopter.

There must be a way of calculating (or at least arguing) where the line should be drawn between "cheap and cheerful" ... or at least, "good enough", in order to increase quantity, and going for the very best (or at least the most expensive), ending up not being able to put anything up in the air at all because you can't afford to buy enough airframes.

Perhaps we take a leaf out of the Tele-Goons and equip our ground huggers with colour photographs of an Apache to show the Taleban when things get hot.

[engineer(retard)]

EUR

For someone looking to stimulate debate you appear to get tetchy when you get some.

I do not consider that we are sooo much better than the yanks, but if you wander into military airworthiness with your eyes shut you end up with a Chinook Mk3. The bells and whistles complex is not a problem we suffer from, we cannot afford it. Your not invented here complex argument has some merit but there is a strong industrial lobby, and considering your opening argument that you want a say in running your own country, do you want to be beholden to another country for security of supply?

Kevlar matting is not that expensive but reflooring to put it in could be. However, a typical aircraft modification will cost you in the region of £6-10m in NRCs. I suggest that you look at Chinook support costs if you think US industry will support us on the cheap. It might also be worth looking at the JSF threads to see the discussions on technology transfer issues.

Your DAS argument is priceless. Who do you think is happy about sending troops out to theatre in soft skinned vehicles. Then using that as a reason not to fit it to an aircraft. I do hope that you do not get a say in running our country, you appear to value military lives about as much as our current leadership. I would aslo suggest that the current airborne threat is vastly different now to the NI days and believe the crews would prefer a good DAS to providing a 50/50 target choice..

Again I agree about drawing the line about good enough but that is the purpose of the COEIA, to measure the required capability against the available funding. Personally, I believe that the UK has too many standards that are applied too rigidly putting up cost and that money could be better spent looking at areas that could be applied with more discretion. However, I do not believe that skimping on survivability is the way to to reduce cost.

regards

retard

[EU Referendum]

EUR
For someone looking to stimulate debate you appear to get tetchy when you get some.
I do not consider that we are sooo much better than the yanks, but if you wander into military airworthiness with your eyes shut you end up with a Chinook Mk3. The bells and whistles complex is not a problem we suffer from, we cannot afford it. Your not invented here complex argument has some merit but there is a strong industrial lobby, and considering your opening argument that you want a say in running your own country, do you want to be beholden to another country for security of supply?

Kevlar matting is not that expensive but reflooring to put it in could be. However, a typical aircraft modification will cost you in the region of £6-10m in NRCs. I suggest that you look at Chinook support costs if you think US industry will support us on the cheap. It might also be worth looking at the JSF threads to see the discussions on technology transfer issues.

Your DAS argument is priceless. Who do you think is happy about sending troops out to theatre in soft skinned vehicles. Then using that as a reason not to fit it to an aircraft. I do hope that you do not get a say in running our country, you appear to value military lives about as much as our current leadership. I would aslo suggest that the current airborne threat is vastly different now to the NI days and believe the crews would prefer a good DAS to providing a 50/50 target choice..

Again I agree about drawing the line about good enough but that is the purpose of the COEIA, to measure the required capability against the available funding. Personally, I believe that the UK has too many standards that are applied too rigidly putting up cost and that money could be better spent looking at areas that could be applied with more discretion. However, I do not believe that skimping on survivability is the way to to reduce cost.
regards
retard

Not tetchy ... incredibly frustrated, out of my depth and not liking it - struggling with a multi-faceted subject where there are too many issues combining, to the extent that every time you try to get a grip on them, they explode in your face.

What I find incredibly difficult to deal with is that a light utility helicopter - such as the MD Explorer or the EC-145 - kitted out with the very latest in surveillance kit and equipped for inserting rapid response teams - comes out at £3.5 - £4 million in police hands. Both helicopters are also available as military versions for, as far as I can see, much the same price. Go to the MH-6J for inserting special forces and you have something even cheaper. Go for a commercial MD 500 and you have something for under £1 million.

I thus find it very difficult to accept that a basic DAS is going to bring the price anywhere near the Future Lynx price tag. Also, there can be a tendency to over-egg the protection. For instance, the US is spending multi-millions on slatted armour to deal with RPGs, yet road traffic accidents cause more deaths that RPG7 attacks (while IEDs are the biggest killer yet the troops are often not protected against these). The money could, perhaps, be better spent elsewhere. But the point is - just because there is a threat does not mean that the counter-measure should necessarily be fitted.

On the otherh hand, if you are in a situation, say, in Basra, where ground forces are getting constantly mortared, where you have Mamba sets which can rapidly detect POOs but you have no rapid response, what is the best option? Put in, say, a number of off-the-shelf MD-500s to roust out the baddies (exposing crews to the risk of being downed), or wait until 2011 when the Future-Lynx has been fully tried,tested and certified, and comes on-stream, with lower risk to the crews?

This, to my mind, has to be part of the argument - surely the purchase of equipment must relate to the tactical and stategic picture, where you assess the relative risks to all personnel by not having an option, with the risks of having an imperfect option, to then the risks of waiting for something better.

It does seem to me that, with Future Lynx, we do have a "bells and whistles" issue - we are going for an extremely complex, superbly equipped helio in 2011, when the need is for light tactical helios now.

And, by the way, what ever happened to the strategic value of futile gestures?

[engineer(retard)]

With a typical military airframe you are investing in something thats has to last 20-30 years and operate everywhere that you might concievably go. Consider whether the requirement managers in 80s took the prospects of GW1 seriously. If they had we would ahve had less UORs and less platforms struggling to cope with hot sandy conditions. What is the projected life of the US buy or are they putting a sticking plaster on a shortfall until they can afford what they need?

This is where your comparison with the police fall down. They are unlikely to be faced with a complex tactical situation and have to co-operate with a multitude of nations, and potentially hostiles trying to listen in. Hence a simpler comms suite. They do not have to consider operating at sea, in the mountains and deserts and artic regions under austere conditions. They are unlikely to be operating under intense hostile fire nor having to return fire. All of these capabilities cost.

I would not get too hung up on the Lynx ISD, I think you will find it is driven by funding availabilty rather than development issues. Export orders of Lynx are usually turned round pretty quickly. This is the crux of the problem, money is too tight even for the cheap and cheerful.

regards

retard

[EU Referendum]

I would not get too hung up on the Lynx ISD, I think you will find it is driven by funding availabilty rather than development issues. Export orders of Lynx are usually turned round pretty quickly. This is the crux of the problem, money is too tight even for the cheap and cheerful.
regards
retard

Thank you for your time and patience on this - even though I find profoundly depressing your comment on money being "too tight" even for the cheap and cheerful.

Moving onto territory were I personally am on firmer footing, governments in my experience can always find money if there is a clear case for the expenditure and a strong, united lobby pushing for that expenditure.

Of all the equipment issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it seemed to me that more helicopters are the most important priority and, of that, tactical as well as transport helicopters are needed.

If there was any consensus as to what was needed, and some knowledge of the rough costs, it would be possible to get a campaign up and running.