Apache replacement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache replacement
Looks like Augusta Westland are at it again.
BBC News - Lobbyists 'delaying Apache contract'
I wonder how much it will cost the taxpayer this time
BBC News - Lobbyists 'delaying Apache contract'
I wonder how much it will cost the taxpayer this time
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the bit that really annoyed me:
Sun.
Former defence secretary Geoff Hoon, who now runs AgustaWestland's international business division, has been part of the lobbying effort.
Remember that AW are a business; they make money by selling helicopters and support services. Of course they will bid and lobby hard for UK RW orders. Let's not attack them for simply doing their job. I'd rather we poured scorn on the weak politicians who listen to lobbyists and govern by focus groups and polls rather than by decisiveness and common sense.
I think perhaps the UK division of AW should lobby its own management in Italy for more work rather than the MoD. AW builds copious numbers of helicopters, many more of them in Italy than in the UK.
Would it not be cheaper all round to buy from Boeing. That's £20mil a copy and then pay AW UK £10mil a copy to do nothing but go away. £10mil a copy saving! And a capability that is interoperable with the US, bargain.
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully accept the point about business, but would you go back to a company that you know fleeced you the last time. I wouldn't. As has been alluded to, AW is Italian. It's not as if the money will honestly stay in the south west.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like the UK has the same political disease as Australia. We had the Sea Sprite debacle among other silly ideas to Australianise aircraft and the Collins Class submarines were an even more expensive stuff up but at least they made it into service. . The F/A-18F, C-17 and MH-60R have been bought straight off the shelf and all have been delivered at or under contract price and on time.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd,
Copy that, but I don't necessarily wish to turn this into a Westlands bash, it's been done by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than I. The issue is that a news story like this has been fired into the press, I would suggest, because of exasperation with the system giving people like buffoon the time of day. Every time I've gone down to westlands I've always come away checking for my wallet and phone.
Maybe the chickens are coming home to roost?
Copy that, but I don't necessarily wish to turn this into a Westlands bash, it's been done by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than I. The issue is that a news story like this has been fired into the press, I would suggest, because of exasperation with the system giving people like buffoon the time of day. Every time I've gone down to westlands I've always come away checking for my wallet and phone.
Maybe the chickens are coming home to roost?
It's very easy to just blame AW for all of our problems. Perhaps we in the military need to shoulder our share of the blame with ever-changing requirements, yo-yo budgets (first save, then panic spend) and the veritable revolving door of Desk Officers, RMs and other Cap area inmates robbing programmes of continuity (yes, I know, that CS are supposed to provide that function, but they move their 'fast streamers' even quicker than the Mil do, and a lot of them are parachuted into senior posts for the 'tick' then leave before the impact of their decisions are felt).
Yes we paid over the odds for the AW Apache, but we did get a superior product in terms of engines and certain mission systems. The key factors, as always, are Requirements and finances. The -64E is a far better product than the D and, if it meets the needs and pocket of the AAC (both now, and, more importantly, through life) then we should buy FMS/DCS from the US. Just a rumour, but, allegedly, Boeing felt stuffed by AW over the original deal and in part it's why the Block 3 D model became the E model - AW's licence only covers the D.
Yes we paid over the odds for the AW Apache, but we did get a superior product in terms of engines and certain mission systems. The key factors, as always, are Requirements and finances. The -64E is a far better product than the D and, if it meets the needs and pocket of the AAC (both now, and, more importantly, through life) then we should buy FMS/DCS from the US. Just a rumour, but, allegedly, Boeing felt stuffed by AW over the original deal and in part it's why the Block 3 D model became the E model - AW's licence only covers the D.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we were to look outside the military section of this forum, it isn't full of airline staff moaning about how suppliers have "fleeced" them or made them "pay over the odds". Why is that? Who negotiates these contracts; are they given any training? I'm not saying there are never problems like this with procurement in the private sector but it's pretty rare.
Army's £1bn Apache deal 'delayed' as AgustaWestland fights to keep contract in Britain - Telegraph
"AgustaWestland has a proven track record of delivering value for money on the UK Apache programme." says AgustaWestland
"AgustaWestland has a proven track record of delivering value for money on the UK Apache programme." says AgustaWestland
Shot One,
The imperative in the civil world is, simply, the bottom line. Defence procurement has always been one of the levers of Govt to subsidise, for political or socio-economic ends, certain Industries in certain locations. We also change our mind over what we want, or try to change the way we pay (think salami slicing) - neither of which is free. Outside direct political intervention (eg Prescott vs Hawk T2s) the worst culprits are the ticket punching fast streamers (both mil and CS) who float in and out of acquisition with the sole agenda of making a mark and legging it. We continually send naive amateurs into battle with professionals - any wonder we lose?
The imperative in the civil world is, simply, the bottom line. Defence procurement has always been one of the levers of Govt to subsidise, for political or socio-economic ends, certain Industries in certain locations. We also change our mind over what we want, or try to change the way we pay (think salami slicing) - neither of which is free. Outside direct political intervention (eg Prescott vs Hawk T2s) the worst culprits are the ticket punching fast streamers (both mil and CS) who float in and out of acquisition with the sole agenda of making a mark and legging it. We continually send naive amateurs into battle with professionals - any wonder we lose?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed on almost all of that, eval8 but it's not just the bottom line. The kit has to do what it says on the tin and do so with extreme reliability, economy and safety. And if it doesn't, everyone involved in buying it gets their balls cut off!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed on almost all of that, eval8 but it's not just the bottom line. The kit has to do what it says on the tin and do so with extreme reliability, economy and safety. And if it doesn't, everyone involved in buying it gets their balls cut off!