Merlin Costs

[ORAC]

Defence written questions - 22nd May - Helicopters: Costs.

Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) acquisition cost and (b) average operating cost per hour is of the (i) RAF and (ii) Royal Navy version of the Merlin helicopter. [137620]

Mr. Ingram: The acquisition cost of the RAF operated Merlin Mk 3 is around £19 million and for the RN operated Merlin Mk 1 is around £39 million.

The large price differential is due to the inclusion of the sophisticated anti-submarine mission avionics, which are an integral part of the weapons system in the Merlin Mkl.

The total operating cost per hour is approximately £34,000 for the Merlin Mk 3 and is approximately £42,000 for the Merlin Mk 1. These figures include both fixed and marginal costs, comprising servicing costs, fuel costs, crew capitation and training costs, support costs and charges for capital and depreciation.

[ZH875]

I am trying so hard to work out what the point of the above post is...


.. nope, it escapes me.


Could it be 'Ground a Mk1 Merlin for an hour and feed aircrew with crap butty boxes for a month?'

[TheWizard]

Wow, I can sleep easier knowing that now:zzz::confused:

[vecvechookattack]

Good god. and we are wondering why the flying rations have been cut.

£39 million for an ASW Merlin.... is that each? Are they saying that each Sonar cost £20 million each....and the RN bought 45 of them....(somebody do the maths for me please)....


I suppose the next question should be....

And how often do those 45 (x£20,000,000) fly on ASW sorties tracking and hunting submarines?

[Not_a_boffin]

AIUI, the sonics packs etc include the development costs amortised over the number of airframes - hence the ludicrous cost. Particularly as we've already lost at least two so are down to 42 a/f.

As for the how often, not nearly enough to maintain currency so I'm told.....

[Junglynx]

*Sighs*

Where do you want to start with this one? The grey fleet do very little at all, almost none of it on ops, but because it's painted grey the Navy thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. They're only now panicking as their budget gets slashed as they're so far from the main effort they need the hubble telescope to see it.

They procured the wrong product, for the wrong era. They're trying to play catch up by putting grey pilots/ observers through a mk3 course, and trying to justify dumping that 'incredibly sophisticated' (read expensive and currently little use) sonar to adapt to a trooping/ ISTAR role.

The Navy conveniently forgot about the Junglies (as they've been handed over to JHC pretty much wholesale) so no one wants to shell out for us. It's only now they've belatedly realised that we're all they have in the cupboard that's of any use to them at all that any help is coming our way at all. Even though it's in the form of quick fixes for a temporary solution.

Don't get me started on the grey fleet, you could burn Culdrose to the ground (excluding 771, the only ones who do anything useful) and it would have zero impact on operations. Yet all the focus, funding and support heads their way.

Sound bitter and angry?

That's because I am. Sick of seeing one of the most operationally current, experienced and professional units heamorrage highly qualified people because they're spending up to 9 months a year in war zones or desperately trying to keep current in arctic or jungle theatres. These are committed blokes who stil, despite everything, love their jobs and role, but are simply not prepared to put up with almost bugger all time with the wife and kids.

*Takes deep breath*

Rant over.

[airborne_artist]

Sounds as though the grey Merlins and the Typhoon would get on well together. Expensive, no real use in the current world, and draining the green fleets of money....

[Arthur's Wizard]

They procured the wrong product, for the wrong era.

Surely not; Typhoon, MRA4, Challenger ll, T45...................

[PPRuNeUser0211]

And equally well misunderstood by people who live in the now and can't use the properties of logic, foresight and common sense...

[Junglynx]

I'm sorry? Explain to me the logic of 45 aircraft at £39 million a throw when there are barely enough ships to carry that many? What great foresight to spend such a large proportion of a budget on an item that even 15 years ago appeared redundant to requirement, and in our current future is highly unlikely to be needed as it is an item that is fully utilised only if we go to war with a major superpower (and if someone had used foresight 15 years ago of course....). Plus of course it's always common sense to spend all your money on a pet project that then cripples you financially, removes you from the centre of gravity, and gives an impression of incompetence on a grand scale. Nothing like giving yourself a range of assets to allow flexibility eh?

Oh I forgot, the Fleet likes monolithic projects without bearing on reality.

Edited for mong spelling.

[clapperboard]

Not forgetting the back log the grey ones cause going through the magic that is merlin depth maintenance!!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But surely you're not suggesting that we don't need anti submarine capababilities?

When Merlin HM1 was ordered (1993?) , we had a larger Fleet, all T23s were meant to get Merlin, as well as CVS and RFAs. The Culdrose based units do deploy surely, or do maritime operations (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8395) not count?

Anyway, what about the potential threat from Iranian submarines, not just the three Kilos, but the small coastal ones they built themselves? If they want to cause damage and disruption to the West, a tanker sunk here, a few rising bottom mines sown there......

Or North Korea? There was a thread on North Korea not so long ago - here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248211) it is. Another dodgy regime with submarines, quite a few in their case.

What if Argentina decided to blockade the Falklands with submarines?

I understand the frustrations of those who operate green types, but do we want more capability gaps? Our new amphibious ships would be tempting targets for an enemy submarine......

[L1A2 discharged]

Wow, "new amphibious ships " is that, like, boats that can also move on land :E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This is fascinating. An Axis of Arrogance gets us into a serious scrap with n mega tribesmen and, in seemingly no time at all, people stop noticing what Ivan and Charley Chan's doing. At the same time we, or those that ever knew, forget the labyrinthine process that is Defence procurement. Boring stuff like translating a Service requirement into an equipment specification, bidding for funds to cover it, fending off malicious interference from a permanently hostile Treasury, binding contracts and evolving technology requiring "all the running you can do to keep in the same place".

Once we destroy the means of creating the capability and stop training crews to employ it effectively, it will be a very long time before we ever get it back. Are the lessons of the 1920's and the 1970s so easily forgotten? or are we banking on always having our big cousin to provide whatever we need on the big day?

Last year, this week, next month; we do probably have the wrong balance of kit to do the current day-job. Well s**t happens and we need to cover the gap. Not by knocking big holes in the future but by grasping the nettle and putting our collective money and commitment where our politicians' mouths are.

[Junglynx]

No, the Culdrose units get sent on ships on jobs that other services call exercises. Even in the link you provided had one Merlin mention, I know of one more, but put in the 'region' (and I do use that term in it's widest sense) to operate simply so it can be said to be there! It's doing a job any helo could do, not justifying it's overpriced avionics in any way.

North Korea - when questions were being asked, who do you think they asked them of? Us, unsuprisingly enough. But seeing as there is no more SHAR - no-one was going anywhere near the place.

Blockades of submarines? That's practical....

We have a capability gap precisely because we've massively overspent on filling one that didn't exist in the first place, and even the NAO came to the same conclusion.

[Arthur's Wizard]

If you want an amusing tale of just how inept our procurement process is (and has been for decades), take a look at Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs by Lewis Page (an ex Fishead).

A fascinating and funny read; and frustratingly accurate.

[Archimedes]

Did someone use the words 'Lewis Page' and 'accurate' in the same posting? :uhoh:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The man's a self serving knob-end of the first order! Living proof that you can learn something that you don't understand.

[Tourist]

Junglynx.

Since I am assuming you volunteered to be a Jungly (most seem to), dry your eyes wet pants. You wanted to live in a ditch and get shot at, and thats what you are getting! If you wanted easy access to a bar and a bunk you would have asked for pinger!

You can't please anybody these days............

[Junglynx]

Tourist,

Yes I did volunteer, and it's not the job that bothers me. I know it seems strange to someone who's pinnacle in life is how early they can get away from work and how much comfort they can achieve, but I enjoy my job. I like doing something useful and supporting troops on the ground. It's the lack of foresight that has us doing the job in knackered airframes with no personnel support that grips me.

You, on the other hand, seem to have as much constructive input as you do utility in your role (I'm assuming by the smug condescension you are grey fleet). The attitude of, "I'm glad I chose my job as I'm safe at home and nice and comfortable thanks very much." makes me wonder why you're even in the military at all.

[Tourist]

If you enjoy your job, then why so bitter?

You are obviously of the "we don't need pingers/baggers/lynx right at this moment, so they are obviously totally a waste of money" school of thought, and I use the word "thought" ironically.

There could easily come a day when you are very glad of the pingers abilities, who knows in todays world political climate. Don't abuse them just because they currently have no use in a sandy war zone. Most would gladly get involved if there was money for a DAS.

Incidentally, you assume incorrectly. From your name, I would guess we have been on the same Sqn.

Wetpants..........

[peterperfect]

To clarify,
Extract from Hansard 5 Dec 2002:

Merlin Helicopters 5 Dec 2002 : Column 928W
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government is on target to deliver the remainder of the 44 Royal Navy Merlin helicopters that are due for delivery by December 2002; what the in-service date is of
those remaining aircraft; if he will outline the overall cost of the Merlin Helicopter Programme; and if he will make a statement. [85358]

Dr. Moonie: All 44 of the Royal Navy Merlin Mkl helicopters have been delivered. The final aircraft was delivered on 2 December 2002.
The overall cost of the Merlin Mkl Helicopter programme is £4.183 billion.


ppruners,
The figures quoted earlier in the thread presumably are just for the aircraft.
Since the 4.1 billion project covered research and development, test flying, ship mods, training facilities, simulators, hangars, manpower issues, manufacturing costs and profit etc etc yet all items essential to develop and purchase the thing. The plain and simple answer to the thread is to divide 4.1 billion by 44 (or so), which is a v scary number. Frighten yourself more by dividing 4.1 billion by the number actually servicable or fully mission capable today !!!!!
It is only government money after all which has gone back into UK industry in the main. I believe it is a really nice bit of kit and has more world leading features, sensors and capabilities than any other military helicopter. Thats what quality defence from all potential threats costs these days.
pp

[NURSE]

Just because we don't need Merlin HM1, Typhoon, T45, challenger II now it doesn't mean we won't need them in the Future.
I note Challey II has seen active service in the last few years and as has been mentioned there are many countries with submarines... some of whom may not be our friends this time next week.
Yes budgets are tight and the main focus has to be on current ops but it should not be at the expense of all other capabilities. The UK armed forces has become very very unbalanced and that could cause us major problems in the future when our lightly equipped forces ISTAR assets detect comming over the horizon a heavy force we havn't the capability to stop.

[electric.sheep]

Googling the HoC Written Questions/Answers came up with some interesting pages on all sorts of subjects, in particular on 16 May 2007 this:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-05-16a.136177.h

Regarding how many new helos being bought and the number being worked on!

[Gnd]

Could the cost have anything to do with the well known manufacture - or am I totally off the mark?? Has been known in the past. Now how much for a Huey?

[Arthur's Wizard]

Nurse,

A valid point, but I think what us 'near sighted' contributors to this thread are criticising is not so much the equipment itself, but the inordinate amount of time that the MOD allows the procurement process to take.

This is often because we would rather buy an inferior/not yet available British product than an off the shelf foreign product that is available immediately. I am all for supporting British industry, but it must not be of a higher priority than on time capability, after all it's our lives that are at risk if we are poorly equipped.

I think that Challenger ll is probably the exception to the above examples, but Typhoon, MRA4 and T45's are horrendously expensive and long long overdue:

We could have had F15E's in around 1997 when Typhoon was first supposed to be available.

We could have had a MP platform based on a modern airliner. Again around the turn of the century and they wouldn't have cost c£300 million plus for each one.

I don't know too much about the T45's other that they are late and Very expensive.

None of this is to say that the above kit is no good, but with a Defence Budget that is ever more under pressure, can we afford to be paying (and waiting) for it?

This is why we are buying more and more equipment under UOR's. Not because it is the ideal way to procure, but it is the only way to get kit when we need it.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

AW, agree that it would be nice to be buying off the shelf stuff but economically it just makes no sense, and it's money that the guys with the purse strings care about. If we buy from westlands etc then it's 40>50% cheaper than the face value in the long run, as HMG gets all the tax straight back in to the coffers, from the tax on the company, the tax on the wages their employees earn and the tax on the money their employees subsequently spend.

For small projects (eg body armour!) this really shouldn't be a factor as it's peanuts in the grand scheme, but when it comes to projects on the scale of T45/Merlin (and to a lesser extent Typhoon, as it's multinational and therefore the reaped revenue will presumably be less) the amount of money regained is huge.

[tucumseh]

“If we buy from westlands etc then it's 40>50% cheaper than the face value in the long run, as HMG gets all the tax straight back in to the coffers”


Agree. Not forgetting aircraft tonnage determines whether or not VAT is payable. There’s also the minor point that Westland deliver airworthy aircraft, unlike some I could mention.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

AW,

When Merlin Mk 1 was contracted in the early 90s what was the, at the time, equivalent "off the shelf foreign product that is available immediately?"

:cool:

TOG

[NURSE]

Given the state of our AD destroyer Fleet and the fact its well past renewal as are most naval surface escorts I think the money is being well spent. It is also preserving British jobs/industry which unfortunatley falls into the role of supporting UK govt policy.
I agree of the shelf would be a better option for alot of kit I note Panther is off the shelf as are the new logistic vehicles. And there are vehicles that should have been purchased to replace Saxon and FV432 many years ago.
Nimrod MR4 could have had the avionics fitted to an Airbus or beoing airframe. And do we need A400m why not just get more C17.
But I view with increasing concern the conversion of our armed forces to a Light role counter insurgencey force and the knives comming out to cut conventional projects to support this.
The Army is getting dangerously out of balance and should have been expended in the last defence review. The Airforce is getting to the point were there will not be suficient transport assets to move ground forces let alone support them and the Navy has a great amphibious capibility that will soon be able to go nowhere as there will be insuficient escorts. Except of course the grand plan is the UK joining a Eurozone defence force.

[BEagle]

Nimrod MR4 could have had the avionics fitted to an Airbus or beoing airframe.

Just that simple, eh? How many Airbus or Boeing aircraft are fitted with suitable radar systems, bomb bays etc or are marinised and strengthened for extended low level maritime operations?

And do we need A400m why not just get more C17.

Cost, basically. It seems that the MoD might just about be able to buy the existing 4 C-17s the RAF is leasing and add a fifth. But it certainly could not afford to buy the same number of C-17s as A400Ms under current plans. The C-17 is an excellent airframe, but numbers of assets are needed, not just individual platform capability.

The C-17 was in competititon with the An-124 as the Short Term Strategic Airlifter until the A400M is ready. The A400M is intended to replace the ageing C-130K in roughly similar numbers to meet the RAF's global tactical transport needs.

[tucumseh]

“And do we need A400m why not just get more C17”


It’s been mentioned on another thread that the lack of heavy lift has been recognised, but that the “solution”, enshrined in various URDs e.g. FRES, is to place an unhealthily large reliance on the US heavy fleet. A convenient solution, which relegates us to the equivalent of their National Guard in the eyes of the US.


As to the question in hand, I can’t imagine where the Merlin figures came from, or that they are remotely accurate. They almost certainly don’t take into account the avionics were largely designed and ready in the mid-late 80s, but the overall programme slipped some years. That meant “Merlin” kit which was ready for an early ISD had to be routinely updated, especially sensors; but there was no “real” platform to trial the updates on. For example, sonics technology on SK6 was romping away from that destined for Merlin. So, other aircraft and avionic programmes benefited from the Merlin delay by getting capabilities they would otherwise have never seen – but had to pay for it. It is these costs which are probably hidden. As are the significant costs of extending the life of other ASW assets. And the unquantifiable cost of not having Merlin Mk1 in its envisaged secondary role – Commando, to supplement Mk4.

This is not a criticism. It is recognition that in many ways the air vehicle is just a taxi for the avionics / mission systems, albeit a very expensive one, especially if you amortise development costs across 42(?) aircraft instead of the planned 103. You cannot simply say “Merlin costs £XX” due to parallel, interrelated and interdependent equipment development and production costs. What I mean by this is that some Merlin kit was a development of that fitted to Sea King Mk5. In turn, Mk6 was in many ways an advancement on early Merlin designs, and Merlin had to struggle to catch up. Some would say still struggling. And one day it may even catch up with ASaC. In effect, Sea King, SHAR and Lynx paid for much of the primary capability in Merlin. As SHAR did for Typhoon. And so on. Oops, I’ve described joined up thinking – it must have been accidental.

[electric.sheep]

There’s also the minor point that Westland deliver airworthy aircraft, unlike some I could mention.

Apart from the tailrotor?

[MarkD]

why not more C-17? Because the line is closing, that's why. Canada only barely got in in time to get its lot.

[tucumseh]

E Sheep

“Apart from the tailrotor?”

Sorry, that was my oblique way of reminding readers of CDPs’ rulings that PMs and contractors can regard airworthiness, and sustaining airworthiness, as optional – but Westland have never, to my knowledge, taken advantage of these rulings by knowingly delivering an unsafe aircraft or equipment. Unlike others. Regardless of what anyone thinks of their products, I respect them for this.

Sorry to state verifiable facts on a rumour forum!

[Arthur's Wizard]

why not more C-17? Because the line is closing, that's why

The line is closing because nobody's buying them, not the other way round:ugh:

[Not_a_boffin]

Or the line is closing because Boeing is trying to make the DoD realise that if they want more C17 or an OTS option to replace C5A, then they have to make a "decision" and stick to it.

Jane's is reporting this week that Boeing are confident of getting a small NATO order to keep the line viable for a bit longer.

[LowObservable]

Exactly, Mr Boffin - the big B wants the AF to buy lots more C-17s and cancel most of its C-5 upgrades to pay for them. LockMart and some Washington heavyweights (literally in the case of Sen. Edward Kennedy, many of whose constituents are employed keeping C-5s glued together) disagree. Result - when it finally dawns on people that most Army kit has outgrown the C-130, the only option left will be the (horrors) A400M. Go BEAGS!

[Tourist]

Oi!!
Stop hijacking this thread onto c17 banter!
Get your own!

[wokkameister]

Not RN myself, but I do sympathise with Jungly. We have a similar battle with elements of the wider RAF community.

At the end of the day Jungly, I suspect you can live with what you see in the mirror each day far easier.

WM

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Lets not be too hasty about getting rid of ASW (or is it USW now?) assets.

Russia may export up to 40 new diesel submarines by 2015 (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070627/67934316.html)

Junglylynx it was interesting that you mention the lack of Sea Harrier (discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)) as being a showstopper with respect to North Korea. Surely the arguments for retaining air defence capabilities is the same as that for ASW capabilities - that is that the future is unknown, and potential threats exist.

[vecvechookattack]

UWW..... Under water warfare (should be welfare) as we are not allowed to be "Anti" anymore...

[ORAC]

So what has ASUW become? :confused:

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Above Water Warfare, comprising both ASuW and AAW disciplines.

The RN splits it such, unlike the USN which combines the ASW and ASuW disciplines into Sea Warfare and treats the Air Warfare discipline separately.

:cool:

TOG