UK MoD gives £30Bn discount to USMC

[Two's in]

Even allowing for the usual journalistic license of the Mail, this story of selling 72 Harriers to the USMC for £112M, shortly after a £600M upgrade appears to be the kind of Government thinking that gets us where we are today. Maybe there's a logical explanation for why you would give someone such a large discount...

MoD tried to cover up selling Harrier jets to Americans for knock-down price of £112m after £600m refit | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119894/MoD-tried-cover-selling-Harrier-jets-Americans-knock-price-112m-600m-refit.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

The Ministry of Defence tried to cover up the fact its Harrier jump-jets were sold to the Americans for a knock-down price of £112million shortly after a £600million refit.
Secret correspondence seen by The Mail on Sunday shows that senior defence officials knew the move was likely to prove controversial, and they urged officials to stonewall awkward questions from the media.

[Biggus]

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

You update a fleet because you expect it to be in service for some time - simples!

Plans change, a defence review comes along and scraps that fleet - not ideal, but things like this happen, and the bean counters view of money is that once its spent (i.e. the money on the update) then that's history.

You now have a fleet of aircraft you no longer want. Do you:

a. Put them in storage for a rainy day - this actually costs you money, under the wonderful scheme introduced by a Mr G Brown.

b. Scrap them for pennies.

c. Sell them for what you can get - in this case £112M, which is at least more than pennies.

While option c might not go down too well with the tabloid readers, it is still preferable to options a and b!! A case of the best of the lesser of two (three) weevils!!



Edited to add that the article states that the £600M was spent over the last 5-10 years, when no doubt the fleet was thought to have a long term life!

[Big Cat Handler]

And by adding the word "each" to the figures you have managed to get all the figures wrong by a factor of 72!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I do wonder if a point will ever come when supposedly grown up folk finally accept that the Harrier is no more :=

[airpolice]

Two's In Even allowing for the usual journalistic license of the Mail, this story of selling 72 Harriers to the USMC for £112M each, shortly after a £600M upgrade appears to be the kind of Government thinking that gets us where we are today. Maybe there's a logical explanation for why you would give someone a £30Bn discount...

Thirty Billion Pounds, WTF?

From the Mail :the aircraft were upgraded in the last ten years at a cost of £500million and a weapons system upgrade was carried out in the last five years at a cost of £100million.l

So.... not exactly "shortly after spending 600 million"

As for how any Harrier might fetch 112 Million quid, well, that's not much of a bargain for the Marine Corps.

Lastly, how did you lose two aircraft between reading the story in the Mail and typing it here?

[Two's in]

It's not only the DM allowed journalistic license on the interwebs you know. OK, disregarding my schoolboy maths error, the only "issue" here for me (as a taxpayer) is where is the value for money? We can change any defence policy we choose on a whim, and have done, but having spent the money should we not try and get a reasonable and fair price? If the aircraft are upgraded isn't the price also upgraded?

I'll round down my thread title by an order of magnitude and a few billion and await a job offer from George Osborne. Thank you all for paying attention, I shall endeavor to do the same.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Biggus is correct. We got the best price anyone was prepared to offer. If we had held out for more they would still be sitting in expensive storage waiting to be scrapped. Damn shame all the same.

[Lowe Flieger]

Concur with Biggus. Once you decided not to use it, spending money on storage is an additional expense for nil return. We were never going to get top $ for Harrier as the number of potential buyers were limited, so a competitive auction unlikely. All the more so as I understand that there was significant US technology incorporated which they would have had issues with the UK transferring to other foreign buyers.

So we were not in a strong selling position as the US was probably the only viable customer.

If you turn the story around, so that we had decided the US were getting too much of a good deal, but we couldn't sell elsewhere because of technology transfer issues, then the Mail's story in two year's time would have gone along the lines of:

'£millions spent on preserving Harriers to stand idle for the last two years! We're paying to keep these airframes in good condition despite the fact they will never be used again. A golden opportunity to sell them to the US was missed two years ago, and relieve us of the burden and at the same time receive a cash boost. An MoD spokesman said the price offered by the American's 'did not reflect a fair value for the airframes given upgrade expenditure which had been invested in them'. And so we spend more taxpayers' money on keeping these planes in controlled conditions until we eventually sell them for scrap and get peanuts in return!'

Any jobs going for a defence correspondent at the DM?

[airpolice]

If you turn the story around, so that we had decided the US were getting too much of a good deal, but we couldn't sell elsewhere because of technology transfer issues, then the Mail's story in two year's time would have gone along the lines of:

'£millions spent on preserving Harriers to stand idle for the last two years! We're paying to keep these airframes in good condition despite the fact they will never be used again. A golden opportunity to sell them to the US was missed two years ago, and relieve us of the burden and at the same time receive a cash boost. An MoD spokesman said the price offered by the American's 'did not reflect a fair value for the airframes given upgrade expenditure which had been invested in them'. And so we spend more taxpayers' money on keeping these planes in controlled conditions until we eventually sell them for scrap and get peanuts in return!'

Standby for another round of "But that would have been money well spent as we could have overturned the withdrawal from service of the best ever etc. etc........."

[Thelma Viaduct]

The bellends in the MoD/government should have swapped them for C130s and Chinooks.
£112m is a decent Euro lottery win, nothing more. B-)

[pr00ne]

Pious,

pretty much a bellend suggestion.

The folk who have C130 and Chinooks to sell want hard cash, not 2nd hand jet spares...



Price was a goodun.

[tucumseh]

To commit money to the "Mid Life Upgrade" quite a few very senior people would have had to sign up to there being five years useful life left in the aircraft, post MLU completion. That's a basic Treasury rule - I imagine the projected life would have been much more.

That being so, the Services, and those who signed, have every right to feel let down because the decision to scrap the aircraft wouldn't have been so sudden that some money couldn't have been saved. I suspect there are those who had been planning this for years and knew very well that the £600M was to be wasted.

Not entirely dissimilar from the RAF supplier's decision to chop certain Sea Harrier capability in the early 90s, by the simple expedient of scrapping the necessary kit without telling the RN. I always thought that the beginning of the end for SHAR, because the RN (their Aircraft Support Executive) rolled over and didn't complain. But thereafter they could not claim to have that capability, which weakened any Board Submission for funding. (Not wishing to start a light/dark bunfight here - the same AMSO policy decision rendered Chinook, Nimrod, C130 etc unairworthy - you don't have to take my word, see the RAF's own various ART reports - so, arguably, they suffered more from their own Chief Engineer's decisions).

You always get back to that AMSO policy that wasted Billions. It was the first determined attempt to create the "Black Hole" we have today.

[Chugalug2]

tuc:
You always get back to that AMSO policy that wasted Billions.
Not only Billions, but lives as well. At least 62 of which were lost in Airworthiness related Military Air Accidents that stemmed directly from that very same AMSO Policy change.

[glojo]

How much did we really pay in total for those 14 Chinook helicopters, was it in excess of £1bn? We have the Americans that are desperate for more Harrier jets to either act as replacements for aircraft or in other cases to use as spares. The huge problem they face is one of availability. Are there readily available new spare parts or replacement aircraft to keep the US fleet operational?


To add to the woes of the USMC the replacement for the Harrier has significant issues which means the current aircraft will have to remain in service far longer than planned. Are they possibly desperate for our Harriers just as we are\were desperate for their Chinook. 14 Chinook plus possibly some spares for £1bn and we sell the Harrier jets plus spare parts for just pennies.


I do not accept the US is the only user of this aircraft, and are we fooling ourselves when we claim we will get preferential treatment when it comes to buying hardware from the USA if we 'give' them our Harrier fleet? We are dealing with private companies that are answerable to shareholders regarding profit margins and they are certainly not going to give equipment away.

The American government can veto military sales but have they a more co-operative ally? Have they anyone that will stand alongside them as quickly and as firmly as Great Britain? The two issues should not be put into the same basket and we should NOT give away an asset that was in my opinion worth far more than what the USA paid just to make sure we do not upset our ally.

Yes it is daft to horde unwanted spare parts or aircraft in hangers when there is no chance of either using them, or selling these aircraft but that was NEVER going to be the case with the Harrier, we were and still are FULLY aware of the ongoing issues with the 35B and every year of delay is a year longer the USMC will have to operate their Harrier fleet.

My own thoughts are that a shed load of brand new spares for the Harrier is possibly a mini gold mine whose value is very quickly going to soar. To have hangers full of brand new spares is a gold mine of unimaginable wealth. To have refurbished, low mileage aircraft as well as these spares is something that needs serious thought and definitely should not be rushed in to before agreeing any sale. I do not have a degree in economics so I will ask, 'Are we certain the selling of our aircraft was good value?' The MoD must surely have a duty to ensure we ALWAYS get good value for our money and no matter what anyone writes here, I am not convinced this disposal got the best possible return, in fact may I respectfully suggest we got pennies for something that was worth pounds.

[Wander00]

Perhaps the Public Accounts Committee and/or the NAO should investigate the negotiations and final terms of this deal

[Not_a_boffin]

The only other users of the AV8B are the Spanish & Italian navies. Neither of which are flush with cash, in fact the exact opposite. As the aircraft is a joint US/UK design, export control issues prevent sale to anyone the UK or US don't like.

The unpalatable truth is that we got for them what the market was prepared to pay. Do we (the UK) think they were worth more? Subjectively, yes, objectively, no. As others have pointed out, due to the vagaries of Resource Account Budgetting as introducted by The Great Financial Genius, holding on to them actually costs money - money that the MoD doesn't have. You can argue the toss as to whether it is real money until the cows come home, but that will not prevent your budget taking a hit.

Lets not have this thread turn into another "Decision to axe Harrier is bonkers..." thread with no end. It's done, all have to live with the consequences.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

glojo said
Are they possibly desperate for our Harriers just as we are\were desperate for their Chinook. 14 Chinook plus possibly some spares for £1bn and we sell the Harrier jets plus spare parts for just pennies.

It's clear that you don't know much about the UK Chinook programme. The UK version (Mk6) is very, very, very different to the US Army CH-47F. Furthermore, the UK is buying the aircraft from Boeing not the US Government, the spares will be included within the UK TLCS contract - but I'm sure that this will cost yet more money. I do hope Evalu8ter doesn't read your post, because he would really enjoy 'educating you' about the UK Chinook programme.

CWD

[tucumseh]

Toward the end of the SHAR Mk1 > Mk2 conversion programme, AMSO initiated a 15 year spares buy for Mk1-peculiar spares.

As the funding was allocated to "SHAR" (whatever Mark it may be), this left Mk2 potless, explaining most spares shortages throughout its short life. I wonder if these unused spares are still around. Must be worth a few bob.

Again, not just a pop at AMSO (they fielded a 2 Star - DGSM - to jump on the PE staff who highlighted the deliberate waste to auditors). The same ASE **** who agreed to avionics being scrapped (see previous post) agreed this was a good way to spend Mk2 money, and didn't say a word.

As they say, take aim at foot, volley fire. Sort out failures such as this and watch capability grow.

[glojo]

Hi CWD,
I was most certainly NOT in any way having a 'pop' at any other program including that of the Chinook, plus I also made it clear we purchase aircraft from private companies and NOT the US government. Are you possibly reading something that I have not wrote or even suggested?

We are dealing with private companies that are answerable to shareholders

Please do not assume I am being critical of any other purchase deals, I am simply critical of the way we have disposed of the Harrier and YES just like any other reasonable person I fully accept the age of the UK Harrier is over.

Not a Boffin. Does India still have Harriers? I accept the US have the AV8B but I was not aware we ever operated that version of the aircraft.

Bottom line to my questions though is that if we got the best price possible for those new spares and aircraft then so be it..

[Not_a_boffin]

Glojo

The Indians retain a handful of Sea Harriers. Unfortunately, these are completely different to the GR7/GR9 which is the Harrier II (or AV8B) design.

One of the reasons the SHAR was disposed of was that it was a different airframe to the GR5 (as was), latterly GR7/GR9 Harrier and that there was only enough bunce to do one airframe upgrade to Pegasus (107?).

The Indians would need a fleet air defender, which GR7/GR9 ain't. Upgrading the aircraft with the APG65 radar (which is what the USMC, Spanish and Italian aircraft have) for about another 6 years of Hermes would be a very expensive way of doing things.

And that's if the latest Pegasus and some of the avionics got clearance to India. We wouldn't give them Blue Vixen when they enquired about our SHARs.

[glojo]

Good evening Not-A-Boffin
THANK YOU very much as usual for the prompt, informative and much appreciated reply,

Best regards
John

[FB11]

Biggus,

Your post #2 is quite right. We spend money on planned incremental upgrades not knowing a fleet is to be scrapped and then it is (scrapped).

Bummer.

Do you think there might be more of an issue in knowing that the fleet that isn't going to be scrapped needs to have over a billion spent on it but not mentioning it until after the SDSR?

That may have played some part in how the final decision was made.

[Courtney Mil]

The Indians would need a fleet air defender, which GR7/GR9 ain't. Upgrading the aircraft with the APG65 radar (which is what the USMC, Spanish and Italian aircraft have) for about another 6 years of Hermes would be a very expensive way of doing things.

Please put me straight on this one. Are you talking about putting APG65 into SHar? Was that the answer to the problem or was it more about keeping two such dissimilar airframes flying? Blue Vixen wasn't a bad deal, if it was a choice between that or nothing (which is were we went) BV was a great piece of kit.

Kind of makes me wonder which Har we should be talking about when people say 'scrapping the Harrier was bonkers'

[LowObservable]

The Indians have an Israeli upgrade to their SHAR 1s, with new radar, Derby missiles and new grey paint thrown in for free.

http://livefist.********.com/2010/02/photos-limited-upgrade-sea-harrier-lush.html

[Not_a_boffin]

Courtney

The APG65 was if the Indians had been offered the GR7/9 frames.

The BV was a cracking radar and with AIM120 a superlative weapon system, which is one reason why we didn't sell our SHARs to the Indians.

Did we gash the wrong a/c back in 05? Impossible to say. Keeping SHAR would have kept 800/801 away from Herrick, so potentially an asset that "wasn't contributing". That said, it would have avoided the farce that JFH became in terms of FE@R and maintained the role of real carrier-based f/w.

However, to keep SHAR, their Lordships would have had to make the case and funding for Maritime air (not just the "Carrier Strike" drop bombs bit) more strongly, which frankly they haven't shown aptitude for. Remember just how tightly the Great Financial Genius held onto the purse strings, with promises made and never funded.

A debate that's done and dusted, with no objective "right" answer I suspect.

[Thelma Viaduct]

pr00ne,

Hardly...... The spams must have untold numbers of surplus C130 and Chinooks in their 'grave yards'.

£112m cash is nothing and most likely already wasted in their magic black hole. A swap deal for aircraft they don't want for aircraft they do seems a logical answer to me, but I realise that logic is in short supply where the MoD and government are concerned. I'm sure US spec equipment makes no difference in the real world, especially whilst there's a shooting war going on against stone age flip flop wearing peasant farmers.

Apologies for any typing errors, using a phone ;-)

[tucumseh]

Indians had a lesser variant of SHAR FRS1's Blue Fox.

To avoid techy/Sec terms, their version lacked the 1st CDS package and the Mid Life Upgrade. (Like many equipments, development of BF had been shut down about a year early due to Falklands. Design features were lacking and were completed later, hence CDS phase. Sea King ASW was the same, but was not entirely completed as monies/effort were diverted to AEW.) Even when replaced with BV, BF was classified to such a degree and still so advanced that it could not be sold, so was scrapped (Not a Boffin's confirmation BV was not sold to India was a logical extension of that original policy). Superb kit.

[GreenKnight121]

Not_a_boffin...

Fitting the APG-65 to GR7/9s would require fabrication of at least a new front fuselage... every one of the USMC conversions got a complete new fuselage!

Not very feasible... which is why there was no interest on the part of India.

Now the USMC has about 1/3 of its AV-8B fleet without the APG-65... so they could fairly well replace those with GR7/9s.

However, apparently what they are planning is to transition some F/A-18A/C squadrons to the GR7/9s.

The remaining airframes would be disassembled for components, etc.


Here is what was done in the upgrade:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/AV-8BRemanufactureplan.jpg

[ORAC]

A swap deal for aircraft they don't want for aircraft they do seems a logical answer to me Any money made from disposal goes back to the Treasury, it's not given to the MOD. Why would the Treasury be interested in second hand aircraft?

[Not_a_boffin]

GK

Thanks for that. Hadn't appreciated it was such an extensive rebuild - definitely makes sale to another party even less attractive.

Interesting variation on the original story (ie actually using the cabs as opposed to recycling them for spares). I know a lot of the FA18s are sh@gged, hours-wise but assume the same applies to the AV8B. I wonder why they're converting VMFA as well as VMA? Maintain/strengthen the case for F35B perhaps?

[Wander00]

Anyone know if the Harrier deal with the Americans was referred for scrutiny by NAO or Public Accounts Committee?

[lj101]

Do you think there might be more of an issue in knowing that the fleet that isn't going to be scrapped needs to have over a billion spent on it but not mentioning it until after the SDSR?

That may have played some part in how the final decision was made.

FB11 - Are you implying that nobody mentioned the fact that the GR4 fleet required a billion spent on them for upgrade until AFTER the SDSR?

Gosh. Wonder if Mr. C was a bit grumpy when he found out.

[FB11]

lj

Rumour has it that the PM wasn't expecting to have the 'savings' from canning the Harrier to be instantly subsumed into a GR4 hole that wasn't there during SDSR (as opposed to the wider Defence black hole that was).

FB11

[orca]

Hmmm, a moment of clarity.

SDSR came up with Harrier, CVS and DPOC as savings set against the cost keeping the Tornado (getting rid of it would have saved £600 million more over ten years) and variant change to F-35C.

18 months on it turns out (caveat - this is a rumour site) that the Tornado ate the £1 billion saved from DPOC (its successor - oh the irony - can't afford to buy the new aeroplane we spent all the money on the old one), which was actually needed for QECV conversion. Hence the motivation for F-35B variant re-selection. Yes, makes perfect sense!

That and its easier to land, you don't need pilots and deck crews to be out in the USA, it's similar to a helo so RN helo types can supervise it....so RN types don't need F-35B cockpits...all so clear now.

[AutoBit]

Now, now orca. You sound far too sceptical for my likeing.

Next you'll be telling us that the supposed 'savings' from F35B will all be taken up in a re-design of the carrier (again) and additional mods to the b to refit the uk wpns that were taken out when we switched to C.

Never happen. Nope. No way.

[glojo]

Question to those that might be still carrier current
If several aircraft have taken off from the deck of a carrier, have you ever heard of them not being able to land back on deck because of bad weather and then had to ditch in the sea? We hear all these comments about bad weather restricting flying and those that make them try to pretend it only effects aircraft carriers and a concrete airfield is immune from the effects of mother nature.

I served on what was the smallest aircraft carrier we operated and I think it fair to say it was far more prone to uppy, downy movement than your much bigger carriers so yes there were days when flying was cancelled, but we NEVER, ever lost several aircraft that had flown off to carry out a mission and could not be recovered. If we knew the weather was too bad for flying and a hundred miles to the West was more suitable then that is where we would move to.

The carrier has mobility and can move away from local storms, plus the enemy be they shore based aircraft or sea based will also have the same problems and have to cope with these unfavourable conditions. The STOVL aircraft may well be able to operate in rougher sea conditions but let us not forget the calmest place on any big ship is the stern where on our carrier we locate the arrester gear (not because its the calmest location). Landing an aircraft on the deck of a carrier has never been a walk in the park, landing in rough weather is what sorts the men from the boys, landing in rough weather at night is what makes these pilots men of EXCEPTIONAL ability. Hopefully the F-35C will have aids that might make that task slightly easier but I just know it will never be a walk in the park!.

I still need convincing that the 'B' is a superior aircraft to the 'C' and as much as I would love to see the F-18 being seen as a consideration, it still must surely come back to ownership and would the RAF welcome the F-18 with open arms. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the F-35C is overcoming all its problems and all this talk about the 'B' is just media hype? a

Apologies for all my witterings

John

[AutoBit]

Glojo,

I dont know of many 'mass ditchings' but if you want to do blue water, non-div ops then organic aar is how you mitgate that risk. One ac is asigned as the recovery tanker and ac that 'bolter' are topped up whilst in the 'bolter patten'.

Very good example from the USN here.

PBS Carrier - Landing on a Pitching Deck Pt. 1.mp4 - YouTube

[orca]

Organic AR has three broad uses. Pre-mission tanking, post mission tanking as described above and a 'chase down' role where by the tanker will attempt to run down a fighter that is off to the beach.

[glojo]

Autobit please do not get me wrong, I deliberately used the words I did as we sometimes unfortunately lost the odd aircraft due to the very nature of the beast but during my time at sea I cannot recall the type of incident I have outlined.

To me the carrier is the ultimate weapon if a nation wants to 'project power' and being able to launch and more important..... recover aircraft during 'inclement' weather is a must have skill that has to be taught and then maintained. It is no good only operating in ideal conditions as one day that will catch you out. I note that ship had been operational for five months and sadly some of those pilots appeared to lack a certain degree of confidence... As the saying goes... It is not about the size of the man in the fight, it is all about the size of the fight in the man.

Nice video but what a huge ship... Centaur was one fifth the size and I guess we could all shoot the breeze regarding sea stories ;)

I think I saw the documentary that your video relates to and the night landings proved to be 'interesting'. Eventually did the boss go up in a tanker to give out that much needed to fuel as a number of pilots struggled to get back onto the deck? That was also his very last flight and thankfully he got back at the first attempt and caught the third wire?

Night landings on a carrier at sea in rough weather must surely be one of the ultimate skills required of a Navy pilot? RESPECT and now do it on a tiny little Centaur class carrier... We sailed close to the Enterprise and we felt like one of her liberty boats!! :ok::ok:


Can Great Britain afford to operate a fixed wing carrier? I have no idea but if we want to play the game then we should play in a professional manner with the right ball and the correct kit.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Any money made from disposal goes back to the Treasury, it's not given to the MOD. Why would the Treasury be interested in second hand aircraft? Because it could save the Treasury hundreds of millions later on down the line, the money all originates from the same pot. £112m is small change, the government spends the same amount on London weighting and allowances for their staff each year.

If various government departments are unable to join the dots, it's no wonder the country is skint and much mil kit is decrepit and unfit for purpose.

[tucumseh]

Pious Pilot

You are absolutely right.

But neither Treasury nor MoD has the slightest interest in joining the dots.

Their only interest is to prevent the scale of the waste being exposed, because that would raise the bar and lead to higher expectations of their staffs. Their attitude, as long as I have been in MoD, is to dumb down to the lowest common denominator. The MoD actively commits huge resources to defending any accusation they waste money. To commit such monies requires top level approval and proven linkage to formal policy.

A simple example I've offered before. In October 2007 the Nimrod IPT issued an Invitation to Tender to conduct a 3 year R&D programme for a "new" safety related requirement. All bidders duly replied, but one had the temerity to point out that the "R&D" phase wasn't necessary, because the specification could be met by resurrecting kit that had been declared obsolescent in 1999. In fact, here's the replacement kit for half the price and 100 times (really!) the performance. All you need is to develop a minor aircraft mod - and here are the drawings for the aircraft that already has the kit.

Instead of even investigating this offer (which would have taken one phone call to the IPT next door who developed the newer kit) MoD's reaction was to berate the MD of the company, instruct him to wind it in and don't contact MoD except to reply properly to the ITT. They didn't get the contract. (The MD of the company? A retired RAF engineer, who had spent a full career on Nimrod. The IPT knew him well).