Finally proven wastelands is a con

[matelo99]

Came across this article. Why does it not surprise me that self serving Civil Servant would do something like this? I know it's the wail but it makes my blood boil!!

Troops pay ¿blood price¿ as ex-MoD chief protects £1bn helicopter contract | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265017/Troops-pay-blood-price-ex-MoD-chief-protects-1bn-helicopter-contract.html)

[seafuryfan]

It's a pity about the poor title of this thread which, if better worded, would have attracted more hits.

Nevertheless, an interesting article with information that was doing the rounds in crewrooms some years ago. Not much we could do about it, being lowly worker ants.

[tornadoken]

m99: You use the pejorative nickname because you agree with the view of the 1983 Foreign Secretary at the time of Maggie Thatcher's Westland Affair, which shook her Administration and lost her 2 Cabinet Ministers. Geoffrey Howe: Westland had "never struck me as well managed" Conflict of Loyalties,94,Mac,P462. After the long interregnum under GKN, AgustaWestland is now part of the Italian parastatal Finmeccanica: that needs all the sound management it can find: we should be flattered that Brit Sir Humphreys are seen in Rome as exactly that.

Cross-fertilisation, public-to-private sector is normal and desirable - Howe became an NXD at Glaxo and JP Morgan. It was announced in July,2004 when Finmeccanica took up GKN's residual 50% of AgustaWestland, that the purchase price would go up if Flynx was bought. Feel free to endorse UTC's position that Blackhawk would have been quicker/better than Wildcat, but that is unconnected with the Mail's/Tory MP candidate's electoral opportunism.

[fallmonk]

First off I would like to say I am not a member off the armed forces just some one with a intrest in mill aviation.

My question to the crew . Who will or potentialy fly these two types of aircraft is there a prefferance ? Taking out the politics .

Wot would be on YOUR favoured choice ?
Am asking as you are the people that would be the end users!!!

[Compressorstall]

The Daily Mail always wants to sound shocked. However, this is just a case where people want to ignore the truth. War is often seen as being fought for a noble cause, but Defence has become about making money. Westlands produce some good products, but we have paid through the nose to retain a helicopter manufacturing capability in this country. I read that we were buying our 62 Wildcats for the same price as 548 UH60M Blackhawks that the US Army was investing in.
At the same time we have been involved in 2 wars and other little actions where helicopters have always been to the fore and yet we have always had a slightly larger helicopter fleet than your average aero club. It does make you wonder that all that time back in the Westlands Affair if we had bought Blackhawks and more Chinooks like everyone wanted, we would have commonality and affordability (Economies of Scale). However, we didn't and now the Government tried its best to ignore the problem whilst the companies got much richer due the War on Terror.
I always thought that if I wanted to get rich, I should have been an arms trader.

[soddim]

Whilst I understand the need to support British products and British jobs, this is not the purpose of the defence budget.

It might be better long term to let companies that cannot compete on a level playing field to fade away in the hope that the expertise thrown out of business can redeploy to a product range in which they can be competitive.

It is certainly high time to review the issue of retiring civil servants and serving personnel taking jobs with companies they dealt with in MoD.

[Chugalug2]

Compressorstall:
The Daily Mail always wants to sound shocked.
I have no doubt that what the Daily Mail wants is to make money, and does so by pitching its stories in a dramatic way. I don't think it has a monopoly on its desires nor its methods. The fact is that this story is shocking, whether new news or not. Indeed Cs, what you write is shocking. Unless and until we overcome the world weary resignation that nothing is new and nothing shocks, the corruption and incompetence will continue unabated. It has always struck me that the incoming administration has a top priority target in a war on waste, both of money and lives. That target is the corrupt incompetent carbuncle that is the Ministry of Defence which cries out for reform. As far as saving lives are concerned, extracting the Military Aviation Authority from its maw, so that it may be truly separate and independent, is a must. Cue shrieks of thread hijack....

[Thelma Viaduct]

Ask them for a quote for a bolt :ok:

[D O Guerrero]

What do you expect from a Kevin?

[Impiger]

Not the decision on helicopters - frankly if we didn't buy British when possible we wouldn't be allowed to buy at all.

No its the bit about:

An MoD spokesperson said: ‘Sir Kevin Tebbit’s appointment as chairman of Finmeccanica was unconditionally approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [ACOBA], the independent body that provides Government with advice on such matters.

Unconditional approval!! My application to undertake some part time consultancy for 2 very minor organisations with loose links to defence was 'conditional' on me not lobbying Ministers, Crown Servants or Special advisors on behalf of those companies for 12 months after retirement. Clearly one rule for them and another ..... quelle surprise:(

[leopold bloom]

tornadoken,
Thanks for giving me a good laugh, you have cheered me up after a very trying day. I think Geoffrey Howe summed it up nicely.:D

[Widger]

Soddim,

I refer the honorable gentleman to the extract below:

The Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) is a United Kingdom government policy which was published as a white paper on 15 December 2005. The purpose of the DIS is stated to be to ensure that the UK armed forces are provided with the equipment they require, on time, and at best value for money. This is achieved through the maintenance of sovereign capabilities, i.e. the capabilities of UK companies in key defence areas.

[soddim]

Thanks, Widger. Nothing to do with unemployment in key labour marginals, of course!

The day when the front line gets the best value for money with deliveries on time will either be the day when we cease to buy from British suppliers or MoD gets their act together and learns how to procure effectively from this country.

[JEMster]

Impiger, Tebbit waited a year before applying for permission to take on the job so there was no need for ACOBA to tell him not to lobby for a year.

[TBM-Legend]

Funny really that both Westland and Augusta built their helo business on proven Sikorski designs..

S-51, S-55, S-58, H-3 [various] etc..

[tornadoken]

TBML: WG.13 (to be Lynx) is the only production helicopter wholly designed in Yeovil. WG.34 began mid-1978 solo, but by 11/79 it had become joint with Agusta, to be EH101 Merlin. Yeovil built (ex-Hughes) AH-64, and Sikorsky S.51/55/58/62. Agusta began on Bells, then Sikorsky S.62; its Meridionali Unit did Boeing-Vertol CH-47.

Eurocopter's French half (once Sud) began on S.55/58, then was World-first with successful turbine types, Djinn and Alouette. Its big ASW Frelon had a Sikorsky power-train sub-licenced from Agusta. The German half (once MBB) entered the sector with original Bo.105 and licenced its rigid rotor to Sud who schemed Gazelle with it, then dropped it.

It would be complex to trace paternity of rotory power-trains. Juan de la Cierva UK-patented cyclic pitch control, dying before he could hover; by ’42 a Russian-American did. MRH.Uttley,Westland & the Br.Helicopter Industry, 45-60,Cass,2001,P110 recounts that in 1944 UK requested 250 Sikorsky R-5A (HO2S-1), asserted patent infringement, was berated by Senators (US supplies were free!), and let the order, and the issue, lapse.

[Gnd]

That's the question being raised, after the Labour Government announced it will be buying 22 new Chinook Helicopters from American firm Boeing and not from Yeovil based Augusta-WestlandFull artical (http://surreyheathlibdems.org.uk/news/000248/why_wont_labour_buy_british.html) but political so probably not worth the pixels it is written in.

AW are well known for being money grabbers - partnering - right!! Get the Blackhawks.

[tucumseh]

I sincerely doubt if any of the “wastelands” brigade have ever negotiated and then managed a contract with the company. Or are remotely familiar with the concept of, for example, post-costing, which ensures a company is paid a fair and reasonable price with an agreed profit margin. To this day, Westland remain the only company that has ever offered me money back during a contract, because they have been so efficient they didn’t need the “float” element I had agreed. (Typically, delays caused by aircraft unservicability or other unforeseens). Their prompt action allowed me to fund features in the aircraft that the Service had salami sliced out; if they had held on to it until post-costing clawed it back, I wouldn’t have received the money. I have nothing but praise for their staffs I have dealt with.

Time and again, over many years, Westland have been shafted by MoD. Time and again they have kept quiet, got their heads down, and sorted out MoD’s mess. On numerous occasions, that included effectively taking over large contracts that they were merely sub-contractors on and completing them when MoD’s chosen favourite failed to deliver, reneged on their contractual obligations, or had those obligations waived by a friendly/incompetent/pliable project manager. Then, had to sit back and watch the “prime” contractor take credit for a programme which they did more to hinder than help.

I recall one occasion when the prime was contracted to integrate new avionics into the aircraft. Westland’s only role was to prepare the aircraft for trials and conduct said trials from their premises. The PM waived the prime’s system integration clause, the prime pitched up and dumped a truck load of crates on the hangar floor – and were paid in full as that, apparently, constituted “systems integration”. With no contract cover whatsoever, Westland installed the avionics, designed and manufactured the bits that the prime had missed (or rather, were told about but they ignored the advice), and were solely responsible for that aircraft getting through trials successfully and entering service on time. The prime took the credit, but Westland quite rightly submitted a bill which ate up their profit margin. As ever, you need to look at the wider picture and understand where the root of the problem is. The “waste” invariably occurs elsewhere.

[Jackonicko]

The contractor can only produce what they are told to produce, and in FLYNX/Wildcat, the requirement was not for a utility helicopter - the Army simply didn't have a stated requirement for that, not even for the AAC's own internal logistics/supply tasks.

As a result, insofar as FLYNX/Wildcat is an Army aeroplane at all (and we must concede that it isn't, and that Army participation in it at all is a bit of a fig leaf, making it more justifiable and more viable than a solely dark blue helicopter) it is an ISTAR platform, and as such cannot and should not be compared with a utility Blackhawk.

If the Army had wanted a utility helicopter in the Blackhawk's class, then JHC should have formed a requirement for one, and would probably have had something selected (and, given the size of the likely aircraft) seen it operated by the RAF.

In fact, wasn't there a medium/lift kind of element in Future Rotorcraft Capability, and didn't that eventually result in the justification of the mad Puma upgrade we're now wasting millions on?

As to FLYNX/Wildcat, I suspect that it will be a bloody marvellous replacement for the Navy's grey Lynxes but would raise the question that's missing (surprise surprise) from the Mail, and from the ill-informed ranting on the bulletin boards.

How much would have been saved by more closely basing the UK's future Lynx on the existing Super Lynx 300, or by adopting Super Lynx 300 to do the role altogether? Do the savings in production cost conferred by the lower parts count (the monolithic tail boom, etc) outweigh the development cost of those new areas?

Tuc,

What was the aircraft, and who were the Prime contractor in your example?

[dangermouse]

2 considered, fact based postings regarding defence procurement in a row, that don't rant against AgustaWestland Helicopters, surely not!!

DM

[Impiger]

JEMster

In that case my outrage is distinctly mollified. The Mail article did suggest it was a direct step from one role to the other but it wouldn't be the first time they gave a wrong impression to promote a story.

Interesting first post by the way:ok:

[Compressorstall]

For once, this has been an informed and interesting discussion. Westlands have produced some very good products, but the overwhelming discussion has been about the politicization of the decisions to procure. The US does the same thing - look at the outcry when EH101 was pitched for the Presidential aircraft - but they can afford and need LOTS more helicopters, therefore the unti cost is cheaper. The UK chose to retain helicopter manufacturing as a defence capability. What rankles with the majority here has been the detachment between the needs of the frontline and the perceived political needs. Sprinkle across this the Army/RAF helicopter debate, and we are always going to present a confused picture. I am cynical about defence companies, but I have seen the personal touch that Westlands offer too and you don't get that from many companies these days.

[Gnd]

You know what, I have had my beefs with AW and, on the hole, I stand by my previous statements. Just chatted to some people who have looked at the Wildcat and they are very happy with the aircraft - when it is here it will work well and do what it is designed to do, Blue or Green (fact that it is the wrong design aside!!!)

There are doubts about it actually being in service on time - now that is an AW trait that I still can't get over - good but late seems to be a phrase I have heard a lot?

[Nicholas Howard]

CS, I'm not sure that The UK chose to retain helicopter manufacturing as a defence capability

The DIS states that, for helicopters, the following should be retained:

B5.16 Support of current aircraft – The retention onshore of those
skills critical to the through-life support of our current UK designed aircraft
is essential, in particular to ensure the airworthiness of the platform.
This includes modification and programmed upgrades, which typically
includes the provision of new sensors and defensive aids, structural repair
and the urgent insertion of new capability in direct support of ongoing
operations. These skills are primarily resident in AgustaWestland, the
original manufacturer of much of the in-service fleet, and will need
to be sustained to ensure our current aircraft can be supported.
B5.17 Systems engineering – In order to address the demands of the
future network-enabled battlespace a broad spectrum of systems engineering skills will be required, not least to help ensure the support of our existing aircraft can be undertaken. Without these skills we may not be able to upgrade and insert new technologies into the existing fleet. These skills range from the integration of platform, powerplant, navigation and communications systems through to the more complex integration of mission system, sensors and processors. We would also wish a modelling and simulation capacity to be retained within the UK. We expect that these skills will be sustained through ongoing helicopter acquisition and upgrade programmes and other major Defence activities outside the helicopters environment. For example, Merlin CSP will help maintain and enhance those required skills at Lockheed Martin in Havant (the Design Authority for this system) and Thales UK (as a significant equipment provider). We would also wish to exploit the wider capacity available to multinational companies, not least by managing workloads more efficiently across the breadth of those companies.


So we have stated a need to support what we've already got and to have systems integration capability on new stuff, rather than manufacturing per se. I would see the improved avionics and engines on our Apaches as an example of this, and the previously cited improved versions of the Wessex and Sea King that Westlands are rightly lauded for.

Some might see final assembly as an important political factor (they were "built" in this country after all), but whether or not that is a true "manufacturing" capability is debatable.

So, the DIS states we need AW to have the continued capability to support, modify and improve those platforms already in service, and the UK (as distinct from AW) needs to retain a systems integration capability for future helicopters.

A pedantic point perhaps, but political parties' manifestoes are usually equally as evasive.

Of course, the much vaunted DIS2 might change all of this.

Nick

[NutLoose]

That's the question being raised, after the Labour Government announced it will be buying 22 new Chinook Helicopters from American firm Boeing and not from Yeovil based Augusta-Westland

But Boeing has offered to assemble them here

FT.com / UK / Business - Boeing offers to assemble Chinooks in UK (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd05c184-2572-11df-9cdb-00144feab49a.html)

I always thought whilst the Lynx is good at what it does in the world we live in, a Blackhawk would do it a lot better and with a greater capability.

[Jackonicko]

An off the shelf Blackhawk would be better than Lynx as a small ships helicopter (SCMR as was)?

I don't think so.

An off the shelf, cheap Blackhawk would be a better light observation/recce/ISTAR helicopter?

Hardly.

And that's what FLYNX was specified for.

Where Blackhawk might have made sense (especially with RTM engines for commonality with Merlin/Apache) would have been as a Puma replacement. Or had FLYNX actually been bought as a 'Soup Dragon' Lynx replacement.

[EODFelix]

Also interesting to note that along with the involvement of an ex-PUS, ex-Policy Director and ex-Chief Scientific Advisor, an ex-Chief Operating Officer (Deputy CDM) of DE&S (David Gould) has a consultancy appointment with Selex Sensors & Airborne Systems (owned by Finmeccanica)

[Compressorstall]

Nick

I was generalising, but thank you for in the in-depth explanation. Overall, it is good to have choice, but perhaps people worry that we do not have freedom of choice. Lynx will be good in the FIND role, but as we move to rationalisation of types in the future - Chinook/Apache/Merlin/Wildcat/Puma - it just seems to me that perhaps we should rationalise in the best possible manner to get value for money and capability that suits.
For the record, Westlands have some really good capabilities and I have a lot of respect for them.

[jonwilly]

The Navy requirement for a shipborn small heli has always been too small to justify building a UK designed heli.
The Army where roped in back in Mountebatten's reign and the navy got the Wasp and the army the Scout.
Fast forward the navy wanted a larger cab and the Lynx, WG 13, was designed for them. The Army wanted a larger cab liaison & anti tank, so had no choice but to take Lynx and make it a practical build number.
Now the navy has gone for upgraded Lynx so if the Army likes it or not they get the Wildcat.

john