The supposed fact that we paid £45 m for our AH-64s when everyone else pays £15 m is a hoary old chestnut that needs to be corrected.
The NAO say that the Apaches cost £3.068 billion (£45.79 m each) but while this doesn't include the training package, it does include some spares and support - and if the NAO's price figures for Typhoon are anything to go by, may also include IPT running costs, a proportion of QinetiQ charges, etc.
This is £71 million above the original approved cost, due to
a combination of higher than expected modification costs and the increased
costs of trials. The total acquisition cost of the project, including the training
package, is expected to be £4.117 billion.
So how much do others pay?
Back in 2000, Israel paid $63.625 m per aircraft for its NEW BUILD Apaches, and more recently, Singapore paid $77 m per aircraft EXCLUDING Longbow.
And those are more like real unit production costs, not loaded with through life spares and support, not inflated by the inclusion of IPT running costs and the like.
So while we may have paid more for our RTM322 engined Apaches, than Israel did for its D models, or even than Singapore paid, we haven't paid three times the usual price, and we've got a much better, much more useful aeroplane in the process.
And around 180 British companies have benefited from the WAH-64 programme, generating about 34,000 man years of work, equivalent to 3,000 jobs per year. And all of the money paid to UK suppliers results in tax revenue for the treasury, while a straightforward buy from Boeing would not have done so, and would have burned a huge slice of our foreign reserves.
What price do you put on all of that?