Typhoons an Raptors
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recycling Cash
Has anyone worked out any figure that gets anywhere near the taxed return on a purchase like the Typhoon? Corp tax, PAYE, Income tax let alone all the taxes on what the UK workers buy? Sure there was some research done in the past.
Got to be a good 20-30% goes back inthe the UK economy?
Lets not talk about the research, skills etc.
Got to be a good 20-30% goes back inthe the UK economy?
Lets not talk about the research, skills etc.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SW
From my misty recollection, we paid in sterling but the exchange rate in the contract was fixed for the duration so all paperwork was in DM. Tonka was certainly DM. I think that we also did not pay VAT because of the way the money was circulated.
regards
retard
From my misty recollection, we paid in sterling but the exchange rate in the contract was fixed for the duration so all paperwork was in DM. Tonka was certainly DM. I think that we also did not pay VAT because of the way the money was circulated.
regards
retard
RonO,
You keep carping on about 'Design Rights'. That's not what's being asked for. We just need sufficient software access and tech transfer to be able to service, support and repair the jet in service, and to integrate our own weapons without having to wait for Lockmart's timetable or to pay its fancy prices. This is hardly unreasonable.
"Extra cash to bring early frames up to latest standard." R1 and R2 upgrades are already included in the headline programme cost and represent small beer anyway. EF GmbH is doing the six T1 Austrian jets from its own pocket.
"All the partners could just agree to change the rules." They could, but with two of the partners needing every jet they've ordered, it's unlikely, and penalties would be imposed. I've always been told that it would be cheaper to take Tranche 3 and then dismantle them with a JCB than to cancel unilaterally.
"JSF TLC twice Typhoon's? I don't think so." Typhoon's through life costs are contractually under-written. Typhoon isn't a maintenance heavy stealth fighter. Look at the comparison between F-16 and Gripen.
The JSF price, quoted before the $5 Bn weight problem, before the US cut more than 500 JSFs from its order book, before the GAO highlighted an 80% increase in development costs, was $59 m for the F-35B. No serious commentator believes that those costs are remotely achievable. Even if they are, the UK will pay that, plus R&D equal to $24 m, per jet. That's $83 m.
Most sensible people expect the F-35 unit production cost will be closer to $85 m than $55 m. Interestingly, the first five jets cost $870 m - a unit price (excluding R&D) of $174 m........
The unit production cost of every Typhoon, and the marginal cost of every additional Typhoon over and above the UK 232 aircraft total is a solid, achieved, virtually guaranteed $84 m. And we get 25% of that back in taxes, we maintain a better balance of payments, we maintain more skilled jobs, and we're part of a programme that will earn us more in export orders than our share in JSF.
And we get an aircraft we can maintain, repair and upgrade as we see fit, with better air-to-air capability than JSF, and able to carry the weapons we want and need.
The Day One mission is best carried out by TLAM and stand off, and for everything else, Typhoon's a better bet than JSF, even if the technology transfer is sorted, and even if the GAO's worries about development risk are proved unfounded.
You keep carping on about 'Design Rights'. That's not what's being asked for. We just need sufficient software access and tech transfer to be able to service, support and repair the jet in service, and to integrate our own weapons without having to wait for Lockmart's timetable or to pay its fancy prices. This is hardly unreasonable.
"Extra cash to bring early frames up to latest standard." R1 and R2 upgrades are already included in the headline programme cost and represent small beer anyway. EF GmbH is doing the six T1 Austrian jets from its own pocket.
"All the partners could just agree to change the rules." They could, but with two of the partners needing every jet they've ordered, it's unlikely, and penalties would be imposed. I've always been told that it would be cheaper to take Tranche 3 and then dismantle them with a JCB than to cancel unilaterally.
"JSF TLC twice Typhoon's? I don't think so." Typhoon's through life costs are contractually under-written. Typhoon isn't a maintenance heavy stealth fighter. Look at the comparison between F-16 and Gripen.
The JSF price, quoted before the $5 Bn weight problem, before the US cut more than 500 JSFs from its order book, before the GAO highlighted an 80% increase in development costs, was $59 m for the F-35B. No serious commentator believes that those costs are remotely achievable. Even if they are, the UK will pay that, plus R&D equal to $24 m, per jet. That's $83 m.
Most sensible people expect the F-35 unit production cost will be closer to $85 m than $55 m. Interestingly, the first five jets cost $870 m - a unit price (excluding R&D) of $174 m........
The unit production cost of every Typhoon, and the marginal cost of every additional Typhoon over and above the UK 232 aircraft total is a solid, achieved, virtually guaranteed $84 m. And we get 25% of that back in taxes, we maintain a better balance of payments, we maintain more skilled jobs, and we're part of a programme that will earn us more in export orders than our share in JSF.
And we get an aircraft we can maintain, repair and upgrade as we see fit, with better air-to-air capability than JSF, and able to carry the weapons we want and need.
The Day One mission is best carried out by TLAM and stand off, and for everything else, Typhoon's a better bet than JSF, even if the technology transfer is sorted, and even if the GAO's worries about development risk are proved unfounded.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
While I think the UK should get what it bargained for in the JSF contracts, holding the GAO up as a source to buttress your arguements is counter-productive.
I cannot find ONE aircraft program that they have been positive about, ever.
Yet, many of the aircraft they reported as the next 'white elephant' have gone on to sterling service - the C-5, the F-18, etc., etc.
While I think the UK should get what it bargained for in the JSF contracts, holding the GAO up as a source to buttress your arguements is counter-productive.
I cannot find ONE aircraft program that they have been positive about, ever.
Yet, many of the aircraft they reported as the next 'white elephant' have gone on to sterling service - the C-5, the F-18, etc., etc.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only White Elephant the UK has faced are the mammoth programs that they decided not to design run and build themselves!!!!!!!!!!!
Whilst I am an ozzy born and bred my Dad was Pom Bristol Aircaft Corp. framey and in those days they (the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations! Thanks to a catstrophe of a government in the space of a few decades the aerospace industry was left in ruins...come to think of it industry in the UK has been left in ruins...standby for the next (and last) UK factory shutdown!!!!!!!
You all should be embarressed that JSF even has made the slate for defense aquisitions.....after all Britain you were building the Best of the Best!
Whilst I am an ozzy born and bred my Dad was Pom Bristol Aircaft Corp. framey and in those days they (the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations! Thanks to a catstrophe of a government in the space of a few decades the aerospace industry was left in ruins...come to think of it industry in the UK has been left in ruins...standby for the next (and last) UK factory shutdown!!!!!!!
You all should be embarressed that JSF even has made the slate for defense aquisitions.....after all Britain you were building the Best of the Best!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Fox3snapshot
The only White Elephant the UK has faced are the mammoth programs that they decided not to design run and build themselves!!!!!!!!!!!
It would be great if there were still an as active, productive UK aviation industry "like in the old days." Both for the UK and to make us (the US) more competitive/imaginative. If Boeing and LM had more competition, it'd be better for all concerned.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bricky
Nope, your on the button there mate...and whilst I have been stuck in the colonies for almost 4 decades I am led to believe tha TSR2 (which was a magnificant machine) was pretty much the end of Britain's hardcore efforts in the aerospace industry....
Not to take too much away from Canada either with the Avro Arrow, but I think a lot of Brit airframe and engine technology was buried there too...starting to think the Yanks had a lot to do with all of it!
Not to take too much away from Canada either with the Avro Arrow, but I think a lot of Brit airframe and engine technology was buried there too...starting to think the Yanks had a lot to do with all of it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the bit I know, the TSR2 was a magnificent machine. Only the bloated management and the government-directed 'rationalization' of the industry doomed it to failure.
The CF-105 was a worldbeater for its day. Canada did an AMAZING job building an industry practically from scratch. First, the very creditable CF-100, then the Arrow. I believe our side couldn't compete with it so they caused our government to lean heavily on the Canadian government to kill it. Pity.
Of course, all the talent that fled south over the border after the cancellation was a great help in us getting to the moon!
The CF-105 was a worldbeater for its day. Canada did an AMAZING job building an industry practically from scratch. First, the very creditable CF-100, then the Arrow. I believe our side couldn't compete with it so they caused our government to lean heavily on the Canadian government to kill it. Pity.
Of course, all the talent that fled south over the border after the cancellation was a great help in us getting to the moon!
(the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
(the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations!
Victor, Vulcan, Belfast, Trident,Bac 111,Comet, Viscount, Herald, Argosy, Dove
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure Nimrod 4 indicates Brit only programs are so peachy
Jacko,
carping? Just observing that ITAR waivers don't authorize technology transfer.
As to “hardly unreasonable” requests, reason has little to do with it. Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning and now drag it off the street to get a better deal. You go for it girl. Wave that flag. Bang that drum. Count those jobs.
Much enjoyed the thought of "unfancy" Bae upgrades - "none of yon yankee plastic crap 'ere lad, just beat this 'orse shoe into shape wi’ yer knuckles" (apologies to YKW)
AFAIK, T1 to T2 upgrade, T3, & future weapons integration have been taken out of Typhoon program to make Typhoon FCP. Don't think that's been funded yet.
Typhoon partner deal was to stop them dang furriners from hyping big orders to steal work from pure & innocent brit lads & lasses. Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties.
Typhoons TLC being warranteed don’t make it cheaper. F-16 vs Gripen is interesting as it shows newer kit is simpler/cheaper to run than old, esp. if it's one of the major customer requirements. But isn't that intuitive?
Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list. I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list. What does it say? Still half Typhoon?
You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop. If you want to play mandarin, compare discretionary money2go for each.
Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m. Not sure £45m for T3 & beyond is credible.
I doubt if future exports for Typhoon are dependant on a UK T3 purchase. However JSF contracts prereq sizable UK orders. Sounds like you can have your export cake & eat it.
I'll say again, not trying to tell you lot that you should buy JSF. Your call. Just trying to turn Land of Hope n'Glory down a decibel or 2 to encourage rationale discussion. Judging by the name contest, that ship has sailed.
Jacko,
carping? Just observing that ITAR waivers don't authorize technology transfer.
As to “hardly unreasonable” requests, reason has little to do with it. Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning and now drag it off the street to get a better deal. You go for it girl. Wave that flag. Bang that drum. Count those jobs.
Much enjoyed the thought of "unfancy" Bae upgrades - "none of yon yankee plastic crap 'ere lad, just beat this 'orse shoe into shape wi’ yer knuckles" (apologies to YKW)
AFAIK, T1 to T2 upgrade, T3, & future weapons integration have been taken out of Typhoon program to make Typhoon FCP. Don't think that's been funded yet.
Typhoon partner deal was to stop them dang furriners from hyping big orders to steal work from pure & innocent brit lads & lasses. Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties.
Typhoons TLC being warranteed don’t make it cheaper. F-16 vs Gripen is interesting as it shows newer kit is simpler/cheaper to run than old, esp. if it's one of the major customer requirements. But isn't that intuitive?
Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list. I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list. What does it say? Still half Typhoon?
You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop. If you want to play mandarin, compare discretionary money2go for each.
Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m. Not sure £45m for T3 & beyond is credible.
I doubt if future exports for Typhoon are dependant on a UK T3 purchase. However JSF contracts prereq sizable UK orders. Sounds like you can have your export cake & eat it.
I'll say again, not trying to tell you lot that you should buy JSF. Your call. Just trying to turn Land of Hope n'Glory down a decibel or 2 to encourage rationale discussion. Judging by the name contest, that ship has sailed.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
U.S., Israel spar over JSF purchase
Associated Press
JERUSALEM — Israel is considering canceling plans to buy about 100 state-of-the-art F-35 warplanes from the United States because of a dispute over Israeli demands to modify the aircraft, military officials said Monday.
Israel is insisting it be allowed to upgrade the planes with its own technological warfare systems, as it has done with the F-15, the F-16 and the F-16-I, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the sides are trying to resolve the issue. The U.S. has rejected Israel’s request, in part because the Israeli system provides stiff competition to American companies, the officials said......
Israeli air force officials are currently at the headquarters of Lockheed Martin Corp., the project’s lead contractor, trying to persuade the U.S. to rescind its ban on Israeli upgrades, the Israeli daily Maariv reported.....
I think that completes the set.
Associated Press
JERUSALEM — Israel is considering canceling plans to buy about 100 state-of-the-art F-35 warplanes from the United States because of a dispute over Israeli demands to modify the aircraft, military officials said Monday.
Israel is insisting it be allowed to upgrade the planes with its own technological warfare systems, as it has done with the F-15, the F-16 and the F-16-I, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the sides are trying to resolve the issue. The U.S. has rejected Israel’s request, in part because the Israeli system provides stiff competition to American companies, the officials said......
Israeli air force officials are currently at the headquarters of Lockheed Martin Corp., the project’s lead contractor, trying to persuade the U.S. to rescind its ban on Israeli upgrades, the Israeli daily Maariv reported.....
I think that completes the set.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Jacko, come on then, what do you mean by:
because we've got a pretty good history of cocking this area up.
Safety_Helmut
We just need sufficient software access and tech transfer to be able to service, support and repair the jet in service
Safety_Helmut
"Not sure Nimrod 4 indicates Brit only programs are so peachy."
Typhoon isn't a Brit only programme. We're not talking about production, we're talking about in service sustainment and minor upgrades.
"Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning..."
They were explicitely promised it, AND sprinkles, by Clinton, when they joined the programme.
So far, the degree of tech transfer has been such that essential operational analysis has been hampered, UK firms have sometimes been unable to bid for SDD work, and have been subject to needless delay and bureaucracy. Apart from that.....
"Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties."
There are penalties written into the contract. Moreover the UK would have to continue to build components for the other nation's aircraft, or fund the establishment of production facilities for the assemblies it now produces, and would be further penalised for the reduction in production capacity.
The T1 to T2 upgrade is not a requirement, but is being undertaken on Austria's first six jets, and is cheap enough to be being undertaken at industry's cost.
"Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list." You quote ancient prices that were restated in 2005, and which are disbelieved by the GAO, and which neither Lockmart nor the US Government are prepared to guarantee as people commit to the aircraft.
"I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list." You read wrong, then, as the partners are being asked to sign up to production investment before a definitive price is set (due in 2011).
"You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop."
Typhoon R&D and total programme cost has been stable for a while, now, whereas JSF's is still escalating. If we require a fast jet force of 232 Typhoon and 82-135 JSF, then we could notionally replace JSF with 82-135 extra Typhoon. Typhoon R&D costs would have been amortised over the first 232 aircraft, leaving the 'extra aircraft' available at unit production cost.
For 232 aircraft, the Typhoon Unit programme cost, including R&D, is £82 m. Easy.
They aspire to match F-16 life cycle (400% of price) costs on JSF, despite the demands of LO. Typhoon guarantees a significantly lower proportion.
"Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m." No it doesn't. You quote an NAO price (from the 2005 Major Projects Report) which has astonished those in the programme, and which represented a £20 m rise since the previous annual report. Uness T3 has been cancelled, or problems have arisen that have resulted in a 50% increase in cost (and they haven't) the figure is wrong. The bottom line is that no partner will pay more than an export customer (that's contractually guaranteed), and we know that the Austrians paid €62 m per jet. The previous figure of £45.9 m is in line with Austrian, German, Italian and Spanish figures, and so can be assumed to be broadly correct.
Unless you believe that we're paying a UPC in £ bigger than the price being paid by Austria in Euros.......
£45 m = $85 m. That's far from 'double' the JSF UPC, and JSF prices are still escalating wildly. It's by no means unlikely that $85 m won't be exceeded.
In any case, any price is too expensive for an aircraft for which you can't gain operational sovereignty, which you can't support, sustain, modify or upgrade, and which can't carry and can't be made to carry the weapons you need.
Typhoon isn't a Brit only programme. We're not talking about production, we're talking about in service sustainment and minor upgrades.
"Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning..."
They were explicitely promised it, AND sprinkles, by Clinton, when they joined the programme.
So far, the degree of tech transfer has been such that essential operational analysis has been hampered, UK firms have sometimes been unable to bid for SDD work, and have been subject to needless delay and bureaucracy. Apart from that.....
"Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties."
There are penalties written into the contract. Moreover the UK would have to continue to build components for the other nation's aircraft, or fund the establishment of production facilities for the assemblies it now produces, and would be further penalised for the reduction in production capacity.
The T1 to T2 upgrade is not a requirement, but is being undertaken on Austria's first six jets, and is cheap enough to be being undertaken at industry's cost.
"Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list." You quote ancient prices that were restated in 2005, and which are disbelieved by the GAO, and which neither Lockmart nor the US Government are prepared to guarantee as people commit to the aircraft.
"I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list." You read wrong, then, as the partners are being asked to sign up to production investment before a definitive price is set (due in 2011).
"You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop."
Typhoon R&D and total programme cost has been stable for a while, now, whereas JSF's is still escalating. If we require a fast jet force of 232 Typhoon and 82-135 JSF, then we could notionally replace JSF with 82-135 extra Typhoon. Typhoon R&D costs would have been amortised over the first 232 aircraft, leaving the 'extra aircraft' available at unit production cost.
For 232 aircraft, the Typhoon Unit programme cost, including R&D, is £82 m. Easy.
They aspire to match F-16 life cycle (400% of price) costs on JSF, despite the demands of LO. Typhoon guarantees a significantly lower proportion.
"Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m." No it doesn't. You quote an NAO price (from the 2005 Major Projects Report) which has astonished those in the programme, and which represented a £20 m rise since the previous annual report. Uness T3 has been cancelled, or problems have arisen that have resulted in a 50% increase in cost (and they haven't) the figure is wrong. The bottom line is that no partner will pay more than an export customer (that's contractually guaranteed), and we know that the Austrians paid €62 m per jet. The previous figure of £45.9 m is in line with Austrian, German, Italian and Spanish figures, and so can be assumed to be broadly correct.
Unless you believe that we're paying a UPC in £ bigger than the price being paid by Austria in Euros.......
£45 m = $85 m. That's far from 'double' the JSF UPC, and JSF prices are still escalating wildly. It's by no means unlikely that $85 m won't be exceeded.
In any case, any price is too expensive for an aircraft for which you can't gain operational sovereignty, which you can't support, sustain, modify or upgrade, and which can't carry and can't be made to carry the weapons you need.